[ Page 4341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Essential Services Continuation Act (Bill 164). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 4341

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 4341

Mr. Bennett — 4344

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4345

Mr. Wallace — 4346

Mr. McGeer — 4348

Mr. Gabelmann — 4349

Mr. Gardom — 4351

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4352

Mr. Gibson — 4354

Mr. Steves — 4356

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4358

Mr. Curtis — 4360

Mr. Fraser — 4360

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4361

Hon. Mr. King — 4361

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4364

Hon. Mr. King — 4364

Mr. Gibson — 4364

Hon. Mr. King — 4365

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4365

Hon. Mr. King — 4365

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4365

Hon. Mr. King — 4365

Mr. Gardom — 4366

Hon. Mr. King — 4366

Mr. Wallace — 4366

Hon. Mr. King — 4366

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 4367

Hon. Mr. King — 4367

Mr. Wallace — 4367

Hon. Mr. King — 4367

Mr. Wallace — 4368

Hon. Mr. King — 4368

On section 6.

Mr. Gardom — 4368

Hon. Mr. King — 4368

Mr. Gardom — 4369

Hon. Mr. King — 4369

Mr. Gardom — 4370

Mr. Wallace — 4370

Hon. Mr. King — 4370

Mr. Gibson — 4370

Hon. Mr. King — 4370

Mr. Wallace — 4370

Hon. Mr. King — 4370

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4370

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4371

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4372

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4372

Report and third reading — 4372

Royal assent to Bill 164 — 4372

FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1974

The House met at 5 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask leave of the House that Gerald Cross, QC, act as the Assistant Clerk for this sitting.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Essential Services Continuation Act.

Bill 164 introduced and read a first time.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a brief statement relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that there is a need to bring this before the House and summon the House together for it. It is a bill that is necessary to deal with a labour dispute which is in existence in the Municipalities of the District of North Vancouver, Richmond, Delta and Coquitlam — namely the withdrawal of services by the firefighters in those municipalities for the second time in as many days.

A continuation of the work stoppage, in my opinion and in the opinion of the government, would in fact jeopardize the very safety of the citizens of those municipalities and would jeopardize the health and safety with catastrophic results if it's allowed to continue. It's therefore necessary in terms of that kind of emergency, in terms of that kind of crisis, that this bill be brought before the Legislature as an effective means of providing and protecting the public interest.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, pursuant to standing order 81, that Bill 164 be permitted to be advanced all stages this day.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask upon this bill being presented if I could ask leave of the House for a brief recess so that the opposition may consider the bill.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): I'd like to move, pursuant to that suggestion, that a half-hour recess be agreed to by the House.

Motion approved.

The House took recess at 5: 10 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that there was no motion that the House do now adjourn, I've taken and treated it as a recess. I would then ask the Minister of Labour to proceed with his motion.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I move that pursuant to standing order No. 81, Bill 164 be permitted to be advanced all stages this day.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Second reading of Bill 164, Mr. Speaker.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, to outline fairly thoroughly the history of this dispute which has brought the Legislature into session, I think it is necessary to go backward a certain period and trace the developments that occurred since the firemen's contract expired at the beginning of the year.

A mediation officer was appointed to assist the parties in this dispute on June 5. That was to assist in the disputes at Coquitlam, at Delta, and in the District of North Vancouver. The mediation services of the department were made available to Richmond at an earlier date, on May 10. The officer gave his best efforts in an attempt to bring about a bargained resolution to the dispute between the firefighters' locals and the affected municipalities, and was unable to bring about a basis for negotiated settlement. He ultimately reported out of the dispute on July 8.

Two days later, on July 10, an industrial inquiry commission was appointed to investigate into the dispute and make recommendations which would be non-binding upon the parties.

The industrial inquiry commissioner, Mr. Jack Sherlock, submitted a report 14 days later wherein he made recommendations which without going into in any great substance, essentially recommended a collective agreement very, very closely related to that in existence in the City of Vancouver.

I should point out that the services of an industrial inquiry commission were requested by the union, and agreed to by their representative, their counsel, Mr. Harry Rankin, who was representing the four locals in negotiations. He submitted his report, as I say, on about July 25 and the firefighters rejected those recommendations.

In light of that and the imminent possibility of a strike, a withdrawal of services, I requested the parties to travel to Victoria and meet with me in my

[ Page 4342 ]

office on August 6, at 11 a.m. That meeting was held with both the bargaining agent for the municipalities and the union representatives along with their counsel.

At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I outlined to the parties the possible seriousness of an interruption, a cessation of services by the firefighters in the municipalities affected, I indicated to them that every last avenue provided for under law should be seriously considered and exhausted before the union contemplated reverting to strike action. Specifically, I indicated to the union that there was a provision in the Labour Code which gave them the unilateral right to opt for binding arbitration as a last recourse in resolving their dispute.

I further pointed out that the firefighters in the City of Victoria had taken advantage of that section, that provision, and reached a satisfactory settlement in their negotiations. I appealed to the firemen to be responsible, to weigh their consciences and their obligations as professional firefighters to their communities and the citizens thereof, and weigh against that obligation the absolute exercise of the right to strike which has been provided to them.

They indicated that they were prepared to strike in any event and I requested from them a commitment or an assessment of what emergency services they were prepared to offer if strike action indeed became a reality. I received a flat rejection of any move, any gesture of providing emergency services such as the manning of inhalators, ambulances, the attention to fires — at least those which jeopardize the lives of citizens in the community.

I received rather from their spokesman, their legal representative, the opinion that the right to strike was absolute and should be exercised fully.

Under these circumstances I took other action, which in the face of the imminent strike which in fact did occur — they withdrew their services on the following morning. That evening I had spent much time in telephone conversations with various representatives of the firemen's union. One president of a local responded to a telegram which I sent urging that further consideration be given to the use of the provision in the Labour Code to accept binding arbitration. The contents of that telegram which went out at 12:45 p.m. on August 7, read as follows:

STRIKE ACTION BY MEMBERS OF YOUR UNION IMPERILS THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS IN YOUR RESPECTIVE MUNICIPALITIES. THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES OF A CONTINUED WORK STOPPAGE WILL CONSTITUTE AN UNACCF.PTABLE EMERGENCY. THIS OFFICE THEREFORE URGENTLY REQUESTS AN IMMEDIATE RETURN TO WORK AND YOUR USE OF THE SECTION 73 OPTION OF THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND TRADE UNIONISTS YOU MUST AGREE TO THE EXHAUSTION OF ALL ALTERNATIVES BEFORE A STRIKE OF FIREFIGHTERS CAN BE JUSTIFIED. AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE IS REQUESTED. SIGNED W.S. KING, MINISTER OF LABOUR.

I did not receive a response to that telegram by the 3 o'clock time frame which I had requested it in, but I did receive a telephone call from the president of the Coquitlam Local of the Firefighter's Union assuring me that his group was prepared to accept my appeal and that they would be meeting with the other locals and with their legal advocates, and a full return to work would be effected. I waited a period of time for that assurance to become a reality. I was requested to give more time so that this could come about — in fact until 5 o'clock that afternoon. I waited until 6 o'clock and attempted to phone the office of Mr. Rankin where the meeting was underway. I was unable to contact him. The telephone line remained busy for some period of time and I was unable to break through. I understand the telephone receiver was off the hook.

In the face of that I was no longer able to wait for this commitment to be fulfilled. I should perhaps say that that was the second commitment I had received. I had received in the first instance a commitment that their strike deadline of 8 o'clock in the morning would be deferred while they took back to their membership the recommendation that came from me in the previous day's meeting. That commitment was not fulfilled; they did in fact take strike action at 8 o'clock in the morning.

The second commitment in response to my wire, which I received by telephone, was not lived up to either.

Under those circumstances I requested my cabinet colleagues to convene the Legislature to deal with this dispute, because a full strike without emergency services was in effect. Only just prior to the convening of the Legislature did the firefighters return to work in all municipalities. They did so in a manner which I presumed to be in good faith, and without equivocation in terms of maintaining the service and finding another resolution to the dispute.

They had asked publicly that they be given the opportunity to meet face to face not only with the municipalities' bargaining agent but with the elected politicians from those four municipalities. In the face of this a decision was made to cancel the legislative session; instead, accepting a gesture of good faith and sincerity, the return to work, I requested the parties, along with the mayors of each of the municipalities, to come to my office again — that was yesterday afternoon. They obliged and travelled to Victoria as quickly as they could get here.

At that point in time I attempted to identify precisely what the positions of both parties were, in terms of their dispute. I received an assessment from the union. By this time their legal representative had changed. Mr. Ranklin was no longer with them but

[ Page 4343 ]

his law partner, Mr. Chamberlain, accompanied them and acted as the spokesman. Unfortunately I must report that the climate was a most abrasive one, under which I saw no possibility for a rational and conciliatory discussion under which negotiations could take place.

In any event, I declined their invitation to personally mediate because I certainly did not have a wish to become involved in a political debate, as I feel that would certainly contribute nothing to a climate in which to solve a labour dispute. I withdrew and provided again the services of a trained mediation officer who was familiar with the dispute who had, indeed, been involved in it at an earlier date, in the person of Mr. Ken Albertini.

We did then meet with the representatives of the municipalities and their bargaining representative, Mr. Graham Leslie, and his confreres, and discussed with them precisely what the position of the municipalities was. We were made aware by the municipalities that they were prepared to substantially provide a similar agreement to that which existed in the City of Vancouver, but they were prepared to resist in the strongest possible way any settlement which exceeded the provisions of the collective agreement in existence for the firemen in the City of Vancouver. Under those circumstances I persuaded the representatives of the municipalities to at least meet face to face with representatives of the union, with the thought that this had been expressed as one of the frustrating factors by the union representatives which had effected the negotiations for a period of time. I might say that the city representatives agreed to that suggestion and a meeting was in fact held at which the mediation officer attended. Again the climate was abrasive and one which was certainly not conducive to a resolution of the dispute.

I had left the office in the meantime and was subsequently notified some hour-and-a-half later by the mediation officer that the parties had broken off and left the city. I was disappointed at that kind of action. I felt, Mr. Speaker, that I deserved the courtesy of a call from the parties involved to at least apprise me of the situation before they departed and, as it turned out, immediately resorted again to strike action.

My purpose, Mr. Speaker, is not to come here and level criticism or blame, because I think some criticism and some blame must be assessed to both parties when the collective bargaining system fails. I'm simply tracing the history of the dispute as I know it, to the best of my recollections and notes, for the edification of Members of this assembly whom I am now asking to deal with this dispute.

It should be pointed out that settlements in other areas of the firefighting service have occurred during this period. There were settlements in the City of Vancouver, as I pointed out. There was a settlement in the Burnaby area on March 20, in New Westminster on April 24, in the City of North Vancouver on April 24, in West Vancouver on May 8, Surrey on May 8 and Port Coquitlam on July 24.

So during the period that this dispute was going on, and while the settlement in Vancouver was basically and essentially deemed to be acceptable by all of these other areas, for a variety of reasons a settlement was unattainable in the four municipalities under consideration at this point in time.

I point that out to give some perspective to the climate in which we meet here today. Collective bargaining has been working fairly well, and I think the Legislature should not be unduly gloomy over the fact that we from time to time may well have to meet to come to grips with a dispute that creates an emergency in this province. Now, to get to the contents of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and speak to the principle of it against the backdrop of the negotiations as I've outlined them, we come to the question of how the government responds to and deals with a situation where every conciliatory gesture that could be undertaken has been exhausted and we're faced with the stark reality of endangered and imperiled life and safety in the communities.

We have sought in the bill before you, Mr. Speaker, to bring into play a realistic and fair method of resolving this dispute. We have set up in effect a council of trade unions embodying the four districts in dispute — the districts of Richmond, Delta, Coquitlam and North Vancouver, combined them in a bargaining unit with the City of Vancouver, and provided for the collective agreement, freely negotiated, collectively bargained, as the basis for a fair settlement and a fair contract of work between the firemen in those municipalities and their respective employers. I think it should be stressed and re-emphasized that the basis of that agreement, although imposed in an arbitrary way, is a contract that was in fact bargained collectively.

I might point out that most Members will understand that there is a need for some uniformity in certain industries to prevent crisis situations from developing. In other words, if one municipality whipsaws another, in terms of the conditions and wages of a group of workers doing the same job and performing the same functions,, then it's to some extent a gesture of bad faith to the previous employees who have signed a collective agreement and who are prepared to live with the terms and conditions of it. But if they find that through various pressures certain of their other locals can exceed those settlements by devices such as we have witnessed here, then we are not bringing labour peace but may well be resolving one dispute at the expense of creating more problems, and a little more hostile climate in another area.

Against this backdrop we have seized upon, in my opinion, the most rational device for bringing about a

[ Page 4344 ]

final solution to this dispute that has been raging on in a climate where I see no prospect for a negotiated settlement. It's an unusual and extreme and unique situation.

We have provided further in the bill before you, Mr. Speaker, a provision that in the future, if and when the Legislature should be confronted with a matter that jeopardizes the life and safety of the community as a result of a labour dispute, we will have the right to recommend a 21-day freeze of the strike device or the lock out device so that the Legislature can in a less hurried fashion come to grips with the details of that dispute and deal with it in a way that doesn't result, Mr. Speaker, in calling Members out of bed in the small hours of the morning Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, in view of the emergency and the seriousness of this situation, I don't think opposition Members would complain over that. And, in view of my background as a railroader, I really don't have too much sympathy for people who are called occasionally out of bed in the small hours, because that's the way of life with railroaders.

However, Mr. Speaker, these are the essential provisions of the legislation. There is one other provision in the bill which provides some minor amendments to section 57 of the Labour Code, of which it is the intention of the government to seek proclamation immediately following the passage of the bill before you, not specifically because it relates to this dispute. It is a technical reason for requiring the use of the labour relations board as provided under section 57 to deal with some of the administrative detail of shaping the council of trade unions involved in that section.

At the same time, the proclamation of that section did require some housekeeping amendments for other purposes which I have embodied in this statute.

So that basically is the sum and substance of the government's reaction to this emergency situation. I can't say a great deal more about it at this point in time except to appeal to the House for a very serious and very temperate discussion of the contents of the bill.

I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation was brought forward as an emergency measure to deal with what could be an impending catastrophe or the loss of life, indeed, in various of those communities. Under that atmosphere, under those circumstances, I appeal to the House for a speedy passage and acceptance of these provisions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Minister continue by moving second reading of the bill?

Hon. Mr. King: I now move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the main concern of all of us should be the safety of the people of those areas serviced by the firefighters now in dispute and presently on strike in British Columbia. Because of this concern, we of the British Columbia Social Credit Party will allow speedy passage of this bill.

In our concern for the lives and safety and the property of these people, we are not abdicating our responsibility to full debate. We reiterate our contention that the public interest should always come first and that essential services should not have the right to strike, with the threat to life and property that the withdrawal of these services bring. But rather we are realizing, Mr. Speaker, that fire knows no time limit and does not wait upon debate. While we deliberate here the ravages may be felt with serious result to life and property in these areas.

We also know that this government with its tremendous majority can and will pass this legislation; and our delay through debate at this time, if tragedy should strike, would weight heavily upon us. Rather we will propose our alternatives at the next session of this House where this weight does not hang over our heads and where the threat that brings us together today will not limit that debate.

I realize that this bill in effect dramatizes the inconsistency of the government's position and makes a dramatic turnabout in government policy in regard to strikes in essential services. One only has to look back at the many statements — which I will not read here — from last October of 1973 in which Members of the government and the backbench stated dramatically that the right to strike and withdrawal of service was basic. But this Legislature sitting today, in the first chance of testing the fears that the citizens of this province expressed at that time, shows that the right to strike cannot be given, because the threat to life and property must come first.

The Minister has gone through the history of this dispute, but I'd hate to see this chamber…. This chamber should not ever be used to get into the specifics of any labour negotiation, but rather should provide legislation ensuring fair settlement for those in these essential services while protecting the public safety and interest.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge speedy resolve in the interests of the safety of these citizens. Let us debate the paragraphs and the changes in government policy and our proposals under less dangerous times and in a less pressing atmosphere. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4345 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we share with the government and the official opposition concern over the withdrawal of firefighting services in these four municipalities surrounding Vancouver. We share with them the need to proceed to make sure that the matter is settled and that the men are back to work and the public is protected. However, we also have a duty in this House to examine legislation; and as the Minister has taken 35 minutes — indeed, has taken 25 hours since this House was originally scheduled to start sitting — I think it's possible that we could be allowed the latitude of one or two minutes to comment on the bill he has put before us.

First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that on my right we have the comment that the party in the official opposition is adamantly against strikes in essential services. I recall Bill 33, I recall the Attorney-General of the day, Mr. Peterson, stating that what this bill did was wipe out something that had existed from 1917 right through until 1968 — namely, provisions which prevented strikes for firemen and for policemen as well. Bill 33 gave that right on the one hand and, as we all know, put in provisions not dissimilar from the type of thing we are discussing today and doing today, which in turn took away that right. So I think it's curious that we've had this reversal, and that what was previously the policy of that party in that most unfortunate legislation has been reversed.

This bill and the discussion we've had on it was preceded, Mr. Speaker, some months ago by discussion in this House on October 26, 1973. At that time I put an amendment to the Labour Code forward suggesting, or at least requiring, that people working in essential services would not be permitted to strike but would accept as a condition of employment binding arbitration to make sure that the present unhappy situation we find ourselves in now would not occur. At that time, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said: "It's been my experience that the firemen certainly have indicated a preference for a system of arbitration to resolve their disputes."

He went on later on in the debate and he again singled out the firemen as being the group most responsible of all the groups that might be involved and indicated that he thought that there would be no question that there could be anything but them following the route that he has been urging on them and rightly urging on them during the last few days.

We in our turn in the opposition — and the vote I believe was of all opposition Members present — urged upon the government the possibility of an irresponsible union leader or union. Indeed, the plaintive note of the Minister's comments today, the injured innocence which he attempted to portray to us, contrasts sharply with the statements he made back on October 26, page 1012 of Hansard, criticizing anyone for suggesting that any union leader could be irresponsible.

Well, times have changed. He clearly has learned something. He clearly has lost some of the innocence which he had at the discussion last year, and I trust now the government will realize that as an essential requirement, a condition of employment for people entering the essential services of police, fire, ambulance drivers, ambulance personnel and other health personnel in certain emergency areas, it will be necessary to have the option of compulsory arbitration, rather than the option of strike.

The reason that I stress this, Mr. Speaker, is that we are here not discussing the root cause of the problem that affects us. We are attempting to put forward a settlement as described by the Minister in section 3 of the bill, which he hopes will tide us over, and he hopes that perhaps not when he is Minister of Labour again will it be necessary to put forward such legislation. In other words, no attempt to deal with the root cause, only an attempt to deal with the particular symptom of this particular problem. So I would suggest that when dealing with this bill in second reading we will have to discuss the question of — in second reading on committee stage — we will have to discuss the question of putting in a clause to insist upon compulsory arbitration.

Now I know full well that the Members of the backbench — and I see that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) over there has left us — I know that this can be very difficult. The Member said back on October 26, "Frankly, I agree with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that if you say to any group in society that you cannot strike, and you're not allowed to leave your job collectively, then that is a form of slavery." Apparently that was the statement of the Minister of Health as quoted by the Hon. Member.

Now if we are in the process of doing what the Minister of Health regards as introducing slavery, I think we should look at this matter very seriously indeed. It behooves the government Members to look at it very seriously. Time after time we've had debates in this House where opposition criticisms and comments have been put off by arguments which simply do not meet the points we raised. October 26 of last year was a classic case of evading arguments, sticking the head in the sand, refusing to see the difficulties which others could envisage, but which the government pretended would not occur. Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill we will be supporting the government. We have no option but to support the government, but we will be also urging that the government take steps to accept an intelligent, reasonable amendment which exists elsewhere and

[ Page 4346 ]

existed indeed in this province in effect between 1917 and 1968, to prevent this type of thing happening again.

Why, Mr. Speaker, is this principle most important? If you set up a system where to be taken seriously, where to have your views listened to closely, the group involved in a dispute has no real choice but to go to strike or to, as the Minister urged, go a route which indicated they're not as serious as they might otherwise be, then you have set up a system which encourages strikes in essential services, as well as elsewhere, in cases such as this where there is dispute. If you set up a system where compulsory arbitration is a condition of employment, where it is known beforehand, where this compulsory arbitration is agreed to by both parties in a climate of peace and understanding which might precede by many months any negotiation of a labour dispute, you will set the type of system which perhaps can work in times of difficulty.

Now the Minister has often said, "Well, you cannot prevent illegal strikes," and I could not agree more with him — you cannot. There will always be illegal strikes of one sort or another, but you can at least set up a system which minimizes the possibility of any work stoppage whatsoever. It is really an argument without much validity to say, "Well, there might also be an illegal work stoppage even if you have compulsory arbitration." Compulsory arbitration has worked previously and elsewhere. If it's accepted previously as a condition o f employment, there is no reason for heat and passion at the time when the negotiations break down and the matter must be sent to arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, because of the unusual nature of this session and the fact that the government was good enough to grant the opposition 30 minutes, I will be circulating copies of the amendment which would allow, indeed would insist upon, compulsory arbitration following the 21-day cooling-off period. Because, Mr. Speaker, even though we are at present faced with a most serious situation in greater Vancouver, a condition which started some days ago which has led to approximately 45 or 46 hours of withdrawal of services, we also have a responsibility now to make sure that such things do not occur again in the future.

I urge upon the Minister, and I urge upon the government, most careful consideration of the amendment that I will be putting forward at the committee stage.

The need is clear. The statements of the Minister today are so contradictory to his statements last October when he brought in the Labour Code, that it is clear there is a need for amendment of the fundamental legislation, and not simply legislation of the type we have today which patches up this particular problem, which forces an agreement in this particular area, but does not deal with the underlying difficulty faced by the public when essential services personnel are granted the right to strike.

I will be circulating this, Mr. Speaker, at the convenience of the Members. I do urge the government to think seriously that this bill, if we approach this matter constructively in the spirit that the Minister suggested, can create a better labour climate in British Columbia, which not only solves the present problem that the Minister has outlined and solves the difficulties which he has agonized over for the past few days, but will prevent the recurrence in the future in most of the cases where it's likely to occur.

We will be supporting the government. We regret that we have to do so, but we trust that the government itself has learned that perhaps occasionally from the opposition come amendments of value, amendments that should be considered, amendments which should be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Could I ask the Member to ask leave of the House to circulate the amendment?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would so ask leave.

Leave granted.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, while we all regret being called back in this fashion, I take some personal satisfaction that the Minister managed to call this emergency session on my 45th birthday.

An Hon. Member: There'll be a hot time in the whole town tonight.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We thought you were 39.

Mr. Wallace: I've got my new tie on for the occasion, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious issue that we are facing and this party, because of the danger to life of the people in the municipalities concerned, will certainly support this bill. We agree with the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Bennett) that we should not go to great lengths to debate the wider issue that is involved in this present emergency situation, because indeed the wider issue is unquestionably the differing philosophy between the government and all three opposition parties as to whether people working in certain forms of employment should have the right to strike. In previous debates, particularly those referred to by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) on the Labour Code and the debate we also had on the Public Service Labour Relations Act, much of the content of these debates centred around the differing

[ Page 4347 ]

feelings which the opposition have about the question of strikes.

I would just say on behalf of this party, and I would quote again, as the Liberal Leader did, from the debate on October 26 in Hansard, where I stated:

Our party wants to make its position very, very clear. There are essential services in society and the workers in these sections in our opinion should not have the right to strike, and should we ever become government, they will not have the right to strike for the reasons I have outlined.

I know that we have these philosophical differences, but I think it's certainly the responsibility of each of us who speaks in this debate today to make it very plain where our party stands and not to beat about the bush and suggest that there are alternatives when, in point of fact, the alternatives on this occasion have failed. I don't think that that is the fault of this Minister of Labour. He said in his introduction of second reading that he certainly would attempt, that he had attempted, to utilize every avenue of approach and the final avenue whereby under section 73 the firefighters could have opted for binding arbitration, had been rejected by them and that this represented the final step which could have been taken on the basis of negotiation to solve the strike. So I would have to say that we consider that the Labour Code has not taken too long in practice and experience to demonstrate the one serious deficiency which we on this side of the House considered it had, and that was lack of protection to the people of this province, should hospital workers and firefighters and others in essential services withdraw their service.

We also made the point that in any case the right to strike in these areas of employment is a mirage, because as soon as they do strike the danger to life and limb in the community is so great that we have to be called in at 5 in the morning to get in an airplane and get back to Victoria in a big hurry — which in itself is no great inconvenience. But while this is happening, one hour or half an hour, and certainly one day, could have resulted in a very serious loss of life in these four municipalities.

So the argument that if all legal avenues are exhausted the Minister of this government or any other government under the existing Labour Code can of course call the House into session, as it has done — and responsibly so, in my opinion, and we support this action of the Minister…. Nevertheless, even the small amount of time taken to bring the House into session could still have been disastrous for the very reason that we have stated on this side of the House: if a service is essential, it is essential 24 hours a day and 60 minutes every hour. It is not a service which can be suspended for one hour or one day or one-half a day while alternative legislative measures are set in motion.

The light to strike, in other words, to these sections of our society is not really a right to strike anyway. It is certainly the right to initiate withdrawal of service, which in turn leaves the government with no alternative but to act in a way such as it has done today.

I agree with the previous comments that have been made — and these were the comments that were recorded in Hansard from this party in previous debates — that if a person elects to enter the firefighting or the hospital field or the medical profession, it has to be recognized that there are certain privileges — not rights, privileges — which in those professions and occupations you cannot enjoy, and one of those privileges is the right to strike.

We feel that this episode today has demonstrated the fact that essential services cannot be suspended for even a small period of time — if in fact they can only then be solved by the mechanism we are now involved in, a special session — since in fact this special session, as the Minister himself admitted this afternoon, is an arbitrary imposition of an agreement on the firefighters. If, in fact, that is the final legislative measure which is taken to solve the serious problem, then I just ask the question: could the firefighters possibly be any worse off by going to binding arbitration? The Minister said that at least the Vancouver agreement, which has been imposed upon the four unions, was negotiated by unions — or a union. I think that that is rather a simplistic avenue for justifying an arbitrary imposition of this agreement, for the simple reason that the people who negotiated the Vancouver agreement are certainly in no way acting or were not acting on behalf of the particular firefighters in the other four municipalities.

So it really is, I submit with respect, not really justification to say that because the Vancouver agreement was reached after collective bargaining, it justifies its arbitrary imposition on the four unions presently on strike. It was solved by collective bargaining of other firefighters, not the firefighters who do their work in the four municipalities concerned.

The Minister, in previous debates — and I give him credit — has often referred to the responsibility which is often exhibited by people who work in the particular occupations that we have discussed, such as hospitals and protective police forces and firefighters. I accept that. But here we have a very limited, small percentage of the total firefighters in British Columbia in a very short period of time putting many, many people to risk — not only risk to their health, but to their very life.

Again, I feel that this brings us back to the very fundamental and convincing fact that essential services, by the very nature of the definition of the character of the work which is provided for people in

[ Page 4348 ]

communities, just cannot be brought to a halt, even for a very short period of time.

The alternative, as we supported in previous debates, in the amendment by the Liberal leader that compulsory arbitration should be the ultimate, where all the other avenues of voluntary negotiation have failed, seems to us to be a reasonable, a logical and perhaps the only form of ultimate measure that can be used in which at least there would still be some element of negotiation involved and that the parties can present their case to the arbitrator or arbitrators; whereas in this situation we find ourselves today this government has chosen to impose a certain existing agreement upon the four unions concerned.

We certainly feel that the immediate problem is to protect the people living in those communities. Therefore, I, like the other leaders, feel that any lengthy debate on the whole issue of the right to strike is not advisable at this time. But I do feel, without trying to take the "I told you so" approach, it does appear as though a measure of wisdom would be exhibited and it would gain the confidence of many people in British Columbia, I am sure, if at the spring session in the Legislature we did see some alteration in the Labour Code forthcoming.

It is on record — and I think my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) in the debate mentioned it — that many firefighters themselves do not wish to have the right to strike and are eager to have alternatives. I feel, in my own view, in travelling in the province, that the whole question of strikes is one of the most frequent subjects which is raised when you are in a political discussion. It is the feeling of many people in this province that those individuals working in these particular occupations and professions should not in fact have the right to strike.

I do feel, in closing with these comments, that we would like to assure the government always that the protection of life and limb comes first. For that reason we certainly support the bill. But I want to make it very clear that we will look for something more long lasting — more, in our view, to meet the needs of the majority of the people in this province in the form of legislation or amendments to legislation to the effect that each time a small percentage of people in any one of these professions or occupations creates such a situation as we have today we will not have this arbitrary, sudden emergency session of the Legislature to find a solution to the problem.

We feel that the evidence is clear. We debated it in a somewhat hypothetical way when the Labour Code was introduced, and the Minister responded, I think, by saying that many of our arguments were hypothetical and that in fact the people concerned were very responsible.

The point I would like to close on is that in the essential services you need 100 per cent responsibility; 99.9 isn't enough because the small percent who do strike put many lives at risk. For this reason we hope that experience will be taken careful note of by this government. We would ask that, although we support this bill as it is, our support is associated with a second plea that the government take a long, hard look at the advisability of binding arbitration being the ultimate measure to be used in settling disputes in these particular occupations.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is not a moment for prolonged debate, and I certainly don't intend to speak at length.

A review of the debate we had last October, Mr. Speaker, clearly illustrates the logic presented by the members of the opposition and the prediction that a state of emergency such as we are witnessing now in British Columbia was bound to occur. If we pass through this state of emergency with no damage being done, we should count our blessings.

I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) that we should defer at this time, underlining the correct action for a government to take, because it is at times like this that the course of action should be crystal-clear to everyone and when strong action taken by the Legislature might be far better accepted by those aspects, by those people in our society who feel that nothing stands higher than the right to strike even when it threatens life and limb.

I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker. We live in a free society, but it is free not because of the right to strike. From this freedom there comes responsibility to our fellow man that transcends the right to strike which, in my view, is a privilege rather than a right.

I disagree strongly with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) that this is a form of slavery to take away the right to strike. I think that's a dangerous warping of attitude.

I would remind the government that it governs from a minority basis — not just a minority in the sense of having less than 50 per cent of the electorate supporting it, but a minority in the sense of the philosophy it espouses. But you are government and it is your responsibility to govern for the majority as well.

If the change of direction which you have taken with this bill represents a maturing of your government so that you recognize your broader responsibilities, then we can look for better things in the future and perhaps count our blessings that as little damage has been done as has occurred to date, because the stand that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the Premier took in that October 26 debate is one that you are not accepting as the consequences of your stand become revealed.

We certainly don't want to take the position today of saying "we told you so." What we do is appeal to

[ Page 4349 ]

you to see that the philosophy that you have put forward with regard to essential services does endanger individual citizens, their safety and their property. As a government, you have no mandate to place individual citizens of British Columbia in that jeopardy.

Mayor Phillips of Vancouver, when a police strike was threatened in that city, said that that right to strike should not be granted without a plebiscite of all the people, and that if the people voted for a right of the police to strike he would resign as mayor.

I believe that is right, Mr. Speaker. I believe there should be a plebiscite of all the people if this right to strike in essential services is to be maintained because you cannot have strikes of firefighters, of policemen or of those concerned with health services without jeopardizing the lives, the safety and the property of individual citizens of this province who have committed no harm against society and no injustice to the unions that strike.

We will be supporting the government. Certainly we will be supporting the amendment to be put forward by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), and I appeal to the government to seize this opportunity or closing this dangerous loophole you have left in our laws in this province. Grant this day, and in this debate, the safety of British Columbians which you took away with your Labour Code.

Mr. C.S. Gabelmann (North Vancouver–Seymour): Comments that I made in previous debates in this House have been referred to by several Members. I would like, as briefly as possible, to restate and add to those comments.

The discussion that we are having on the principle about the right to strike of men and women who work for a living is one that I think is not understood by anyone in the opposition benches.

The Liberal leader smiles and laughs, but the Liberal leader should remember that most police strikes and most firemen strikes and most essential-service strikes that have occurred in other parts of this continent have been illegal. Those jurisdictions have had laws that said people employed in essential services could not strike, yet in instance after instance from Philadelphia to parts of Nova Scotia to policemen in Montreal, in example after example those people, against the law of their jurisdiction, have gone on strike. It is fatuous and irresponsible to suggest that by having a law saying they can't strike there therefore won't be any strikes. When a man or a woman….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I did not say that, Gabelmann, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Gabelmann: I'm not particularly worried about that Member's comments. They've never been very responsible at any time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed with his speech?

Mr. Gabelmann: I'd be glad to, Mr. Speaker, when the others have finished.

It's quite apparent that any man or any woman who works for a living does so out of their free choice, and no institution can force that person to show up for work if that person does not want to show up for work. And that includes us in this chamber. If, when we received our phone calls the other night, we said we don't want to go to work in this Legislature, we would have had the right not to go to work in this Legislature. We should have been defeated in the next election if that had happened, but we have that right.

But the important point, and I want to say it again, is that it doesn't matter whether there is a law or not. What matters is that the men and women who work in those industries and in those jobs are going to leave those jobs when conditions become intolerable. So the argument that we should have a law against it is absolutely ridiculous and I reject it totally.

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the legislation a little bit more closely, I have argued consistently that there should be free collective bargaining with the right to strike for all groups in society and that the Legislature should not intervene except in cases of serious and possibly dangerous times.

I think that this is one of those times, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the government had a responsibility to find the solution to this dispute so that lives would not be lost in those four municipalities. I think the government has come up with what is probably the best possible solution at this time. I am not particularly happy about it and I want to tell you why I am not particularly happy about it, but at this time I believe it is the only course that could be followed and I intend — like all those opposition Members, Mr. Speaker — to support the legislation.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Let's get the fire put out.

Mr. Gabelmann: Well, I don't know about the Member for North Okanagan, Mr. Speaker, but I spent a good deal of my time yesterday visiting firemen who were working in North Vancouver, and I talked to the guys. I don't think she's done that.

I asked them what would happen if a fire broke out and there was danger to lives, and they said: "You know, we wouldn't like to do it, but we would

[ Page 4350 ]

be out there putting that fire out because our first responsibility is to the lives of our fellow citizens."

Interjections.

Mr. Gabelmann: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the opposition Members neither heard what I said nor possibly heard what the Minister said. I said I was talking to guys — guys who didn't speak to the Minister, guys on the job, guys who if they could do what they thought they should do in their head would not go and fight that fire. They knew once that fire broke out that their guts would rule their head and they would be out fighting that fire because that's what they are. First of all they are firemen, and they would be out there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a few things, a few aspects of this dispute, if I have some cooperation from the opposition Members, but I think they are not that interested in it.

We all remember that there have been difficult times over the last years in negotiations between the forest industry and the IWA in particular. One of the reasons there were a great many difficulties and one of the reasons why there were such abrasive sets of negotiations was because the forest industry delegated other people to do their bargaining. The forest industry people who were responsible for making the decision were not at the bargaining table.

This year the forest industry changed that policy and sat down at the bargaining table with the workers' representatives. And we all know that the bargaining session that did take place between FIR and the IWA was far smoother and a far better process because of that.

What we have in municipalities in this province, Mr. Speaker, is a situation whereby elected officials are abrogating their responsibility to bargain for their municipality to some third party. That third party has no responsibility to the electorate. That third party, in my view, often acts irresponsibly and not in the best interests of either the elected officials in the municipality or of the citizens of that municipality. I believe it is essential that workers on a job should be able to negotiate directly with the people who employ them, not some organization such as the MLRB or the GVRD vehicle. That is, in my view, an essential and important point.

In my view, this dispute we have in front of us is not a result of firemen's, workers', intransigence but rather of the intransigence of those four municipalities. They have not bargained in good faith; they have not been prepared to deal directly with their firemen, and that is essential.

Mr. Speaker, although I've said earlier that I agree in this instance that we must do something, one of the reasons that I fear this legislation is that invariably governments because of the nature of the disputes are forced to come down on the side of the employer, are forced to say to the worker, "You go back to work," or "You accept conditions that have been accepted elsewhere." Or in one form or another, accepting the employer's position. That's what we've done in this bill. We've said to the workers, "Okay, you take the employer's position." That happens…. there is one in the federal jurisdiction now that's an exception to that, but there are very few situations where the force of government, whether it's at any level in any jurisdiction, comes down against the workers. I think we've got to find new solutions to that particular problem because it encourages employers not to negotiate because they can sit back knowing that the government will have to intervene. That, in my view, is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm a bit of a greenhorn — I thought that this Legislature was for rational discourse between Members and that each of us had a point of view and each of us could express that point of view and other people would listen to it with some respect. Most opposition Members don't appear to be willing to do that. My view may be wrong — I'm quite prepared to admit that at any point — but I would appreciate some concern from some of the opposition Members, particularly the Liberal leader who is not interested in the least in what I have to say because he knows all the answers — he always has and he always will.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of the particular problems in this dispute. In these four municipalities the fire departments, as we all know, are relatively new. We have in my riding firemen of four, five and six years experience who are acting as captains with huge responsibility. Those guys are getting paid at a rate that rookies are getting paid in Vancouver. Captains in Vancouver are paid far in excess of what captains in suburban municipalities are paid because of the experience factor. Firemen in my riding, firemen in the District of North Vancouver, are expected and trained to perform a variety of services including canyon rescue which no city firemen has to do — far more dangerous than many of the things the people in the city have to do. Yet they're bound by a situation which says that because they haven't been working for 10 years or 11 years they can't get the same kind of pay for the same kind of job as their counterparts in the City of Vancouver. I think that's an unfortunate aspect of this dispute, and one that we're all going to have to deal with in the future because the word "parity" never really applies. There are never equal situations.

I think I'll close on this: one of the other difficulties in this dispute is that the rate of increases that were negotiated in the City of Vancouver have what I think is a basic flaw in this time and age. What they say is that 12.8 per cent will be given to the higher-paid workers, and, I believe my figures are

[ Page 4351 ]

correct, 11 per cent to the lower-paid workers. I think that's unfortunate. When I know that a fireman in North Vancouver, starting out, is making $3.33 an hour for fighting fires, endangering his life, and is being offered 11 per cent, I'm not too happy about that. And that's a concern that I never see mentioned on the other side of the House.

I'm concerned that what we're doing is widening the gap between the higher paid and the lower-paid firemen. I'm hopeful that this solution that we've had to come up with will find in the next year some way of resolving that particular problem.

Mr. Speaker, let me close just on the first point that we discussed — the whole question of the right to strike. I just want to repeat that it is a fatuous and phony argument for the opposition Members to make that we should outlaw these strikes because then all we would have is illegal strikes instead of legal strikes. The difficulty then is far greater than it is now to deal with.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to commend the Hon. Minister for taking the action that he has taken. I would also like to very much commend the government for calling this Legislature into session. I think they have very adequately…in fact better than that, they have handsomely performed their public responsibility in taking this action.

I remember the long days and hours of debate in Bill 33 in 1968 when we advocated that these kinds of decisions are the kinds of the decisions that should be made in front of the general public, by free and open debate and under public scrutiny. I welcome the remarks of the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, (Mr. Gabelmann) though not agreeing with them at all, I think it was useful to have his expression of opinion in this assembly.

I'd like to say, and I'd like to say it in a kindly fashion — I hope the government will accept it as such — that notwithstanding the gravity of the situation, I feel that this is just another example of socialistic horse liniment, and it's a kind of a remedy, Mr. Speaker, that one could expect from a barker at a fair, because this bill is a salve and it's a very necessary salve, make no mistake of that, in view of the circumstances and certainly in view of the preamble of the bill which unfortunately the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour appears to have failed to have read or to have adequately comprehended.

I also would say, Mr. Speaker, and this is a submission of mine, that anyone who would oppose this bill in this chamber I think would be abandoning his legislative responsibility. But a salve, Mr. Speaker, is not a cure and I'd like to volunteer a couple of reasons why this is an unfortunate salve. First of all, it's a very unfortunate precedent because it has emasculated the individual certifications of these unions; it has imposed an existing contractual relationship upon the parties concerned, and without them having the opportunity to have the matter compulsorily arbitrated. It is true, I heard the Hon. Minister say that was put to them and they rejected it, and I think it's very unfortunate for them that they did reject that opportunity because I'm sure that they would have ended up in a happier situation than they will now find themselves.

Thirdly, I think it's very unfortunate because it has established a once only 21-day cooling off period. But what happens, Mr. Speaker, on the 22nd day if firefighters won't fight fires, if policemen won't answer the call of society, and if hospital staff won't tend patients? What's going to happen then, Mr. Speaker? Can houses burn down, will there be open house for burglars and, is it to be a banner day for relapses or even worse, for the morgue?

We have to bear in mind the words of the Minister tonight. He said: "The services of firefighters have been withdrawn, the safety of our citizens has been jeopardized…catastrophic results" — he used that phrase — crisis, emergency. And in the paper he referred to the actions of the defaulting party, which was the union, as "abhorrent". I wonder whether the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour heard those sentiments and those words expressed by the Hon. Minister this evening.

The Minister told us that essential life-saving services would not be provided. And as the preamble of this bill states: "And whereas the firefighters' unions have failed to provide essential life supporting services to the communities affected…." That's pretty straightforward language and I think everybody, save and except one individual so far in this assembly this evening, accepts that as the facts of the case.

The Minister found the lines of communication off the hook. He says the climate was abrasive to the point that rational conclusion to the dispute was not possible.

Mr. Speaker, cannot this again occasion on the 22nd day within the provisions of this Bill 164 salve? I'd say it certainly can.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very short. I'm going to make about three points before I sit down.

I'd say that the established formulae in this province are wearing very thin indeed. B.C. needs cures and directions because what we have had has not worked. There is absolutely no certainty within the provisions of this bill that any 21-day hoist will provide any proper or lasting cure. By virtue of the complexities and independencies of society, in my view strikes and lockouts are in many cases no longer rights but privileges. This is definitely so in the case of essential services.

We find here no longer a two-party situation, no longer a dispute between management and labour,

[ Page 4352 ]

but a three-party situation: labour, management and the general public bearing the brunt. The general public is no longer prepared to bear the brunt under these kinds of circumstances.

I'd ask this: can anyone in this assembly say in true conscience that it would be unreasonable that binding arbitration should become a condition of employment? So that people have the opportunity to either work or not, binding arbitration should become a condition of employment in essential services. Can anyone in this assembly say in true conscience that it should not become a condition of employment in essential services in this year that the privilege of strike or lockout cannot continue?

If a function is not prepared to perform under those conditions or people are not prepared to work for a function under those conditions, perhaps the function shouldn't exist and those very people should seek employment elsewhere.

There is a second solution worthy of try or at least worthy of study. This so far has been rejected by this government and by the governing bodies in the Province of British Columbia ever since we have become a province. Why not give some thought to the final offer concept? At least give consideration to it.

We find there that where impasse or deadlock is reached, the parties have the right to nominate a selection committee. Each party would name one individual, much like arbitration. Those two people would name a third. That selection committee would have the right to choose between the last best offer presented by each side.

This, I think would provide both sides with strong incentives to be realistic and to be reasonable in their stances. The selection committee would have the power to accept the final best offer without alteration and that would provide very strong leverage for each party to attempt to effectively come to the bargaining table and effectively prevent the injury and loss of life and the very severe damages that could result from a labour-industrial disruption such as the one at present.

I have no hesitation in saying that I am going to support the bill but I regret that I find it a salve and not a cure.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I will be brief. I think every one in the House recognizes that we must get on with it and face a problem we were elected to face. No Member of this House should — and I don't think anyone does — treat the recall to the House on an issue like this somehow as an inconvenience. We are all elected to do our duty and we take an oath to do our duty. I have had the privilege of taking that oath since 1961 and I have never found anything in that oath which has made it impossible for me to come here and face an issue that ultimately rests in our laps.

We are not dealing with an isolated case in terms of an atmosphere in North America; the atmosphere exists which borders on anti-law right across the whole landscape, I think, of North America. Without passing any great comment on feelings towards law and legislatures, the tragic experience of our neighbouring friends indicates that everybody is not perfect, including politicians. Politicians make laws; people reject or accept laws on an individual conscience basis. No one, to my knowledge, has the ability to bring down laws which will guarantee peace and tranquility for the total community. Lawmaking is a difficult process.

Let's recognize the fact that for some years in the labour field, prior to a change in government — whether it was our government or any other government which succeeded the Social Credit administration — one of the most inflamed areas of conflict, which was deliberately inflamed for political purposes, was labour-management relationships. Those of us who sat in opposition in this House at that time, regardless of our deep philosophical differences which make some of us socialists and others of us non-socialists, saw the field of labour-management relationships deliberately inflamed, whipped up and manipulated for cheap, short-term political gain.

We inherited that atmosphere in a province which has had a history of pioneering the most aggressive and good trade union organization in all of North America. We share a trade union history in common with the Pacific Northwest in the United States. Those who read the history of the development of the trade union movement in the Pacific Northwest must understand that the militancy of the trade union movement in this geographic region was directly related to the kinds of government which first governed this province and developed out of that governing as a pattern.

From the day of Dunsmuir and the coal mine strike and the kind of workforce we had in this province, which was essentially based on old country trade union experience, British Columbia was always the crucible of the new experiences and the new changes.

For the first time, after that 20 years of deliberate use of trade union problems for political purposes, a new government was elected. What did we inherit? Along with the general atmosphere in North America, we inherited an atmosphere of divide-and-conquer within the trade union movement.

I have to give a bit of this history to come about to the reason of why we are here and what led to us coming here and perhaps, as long as we are in government, coming back again on similar matters or similar situations — perhaps again. But the fact is that many trade unionists — 99 per cent of trade unionists, like 99 per cent of doctors, 99 per cent of the lawyers

[ Page 4353 ]

and 98 per cent of the politicians — are basically law-abiding citizens. There is a percentage who are always on the edge. Laws won't correct social problems.

One of the abiding groups was the Teamsters union in this province. They went along with the mediation commission and the simplistic answers given by the former Social Credit administration to trade union disputes: bring down a law. "We'll give an answer; we'll impose a solution" — in every case, in effect. They inflamed the teachers; they inflamed other groups. But the Teamsters, outside of the history of involvement as locals with the New Democratic Party, said that they were willing to give this a try.

Who were the first ones to get chewed up in that political machinery? The Teamsters. When a law was devised to take away from the working people and from management their direct responsibility to negotiate face to face, the whole trade union movement said, "No, we don't want it." One segment said they would give it a try, and the first ones to be victimized by it were the group which said they would give it a try. That was the atmosphere and that was the ingredient in the election campaign of 1972 — because every party in that election campaign was forced to state its alternatives. Many working people did not want to vote Social Credit any more. They'd had it right up to here with the simplistic homilies, the non-thinking, non-understanding, non-acceptance of strong feelings and attitudes in a very emotionally-charged area of trade union negotiations.

Are we alone in this problem? Not at all. A Liberal administration in the Province of Quebec has not shared a magic formula with the Liberal Party of the Province of British Columbia. They don't have an answer either. They've had police strikes and they've had to call the Legislature. So the Liberal Party does not have a magic formula. It is faced with a situation where frustrations reach a point where people as a group are prepared to say: "We're taking this action."

The Tories in Newfoundland, under a very good Premier, Mr. Moores — a fine man, an understanding human being — were faced with the same kind of problem with their hospital workers. They had to face it, too.

The federal Liberal government, much to the embarrassment of the provincial Liberals, came under a tremendous attack over their handling of the firefighters' dispute at the Vancouver airport, where a group of otherwise responsible citizens in the community defied a law and refused to go back to work and the federal government did not prosecute those workers. You do not load a gun unless you intend to fire it, Mr. Member.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): That's right. Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What it does is it means that politicians scramble around and shift their feet, based on their situation at any given time, which is an understandable thing in the British parliamentary system. But ultimately a government must govern. The Minister of Labour did not hesitate to bring this recommendation to the cabinet within a matter of hours, and I praise him for it.

Now we have had after two years the first requirement to do what we said in all our years of opposition and in our two years of government — that if and when we were faced with a crisis situation we would call back the people's representatives so that the people would hear directly what their elected representatives were prepared to do to meet with that situation.

We've had to take this action tonight, but I am not prepared as the leader of this party or as the leader of government to throw out the baby with the bath water and go back to the primitive, simplistic approaches of Social Credit which had this province in difficulty all those years.

You do not create maturity in labour-management relationships in a matter of months after 20 years of political manipulation of those labour-management relationships. We've made a decision that some of our Members, and me too, have found difficult, but we're not involved here in a philosophical exchange of what may be best or what may be worst. We are faced with an issue that we have a responsibility to deal with, and I'm convinced that most Members will support the bill that was presented here.

But what of the future? I believe that free men and free women must be given the right to withdraw their services as a guarantee of the very basis of the democracy that we live in. I cannot buy the argument that people must give up essential human rights as a condition for a job, because once you do that in one specific area, you begin to endanger the kind of basic individual rights that all of us cherish regardless of individual philosophy.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You call that sophistry, my friend? I say to you that the very foundation of the people who formed this party, the Rev. J.S. Woodsworth and his approach to individual dignity and individual freedom, is the basis of why I came to this party, why I uphold the British parliamentary system and why I say that my opinion is that you do not take away rights as a condition of employment. You ask people to develop maturity with the use of those rights.

But there should not be a presumption that once giving that right that everybody will be wrong and

[ Page 4354 ]

immature in handling that particular right. We've reached an impasse in this case and we are forced to do this in this case, but I refuse to be stampeded to say throw out the baby with the bath water. We have a long way to go to develop mature labour-management relationships in this province. I say thank God we have the Minister we have because he's taken us a long way in that direction.

Regardless of our own particular history, we must say that the whole atmosphere around the use of law and the hope for order in North America has been demonstrated in jurisdictions outside of British Columbia is one that has been weakened. There is a contempt; there is an attitude of "I'm all right, Jack." There is no common cause of sense of sharing or community that has been developed as a purpose in North America.

An Hon. Member: Maybe it will start to swing the other way.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Perhaps it will start to swing the other way. I hope, Mr. Member, regardless of our political differences, that we both share this, that there will be that kind of maturing. But the maturing will not come by the force of simplistic law or simplistic reasoning based on populous gathering of votes.

I'm prepared to say exactly what I'm saying here anywhere in this province. I expected nothing mote from Social Credit than what we got today — the desire to return to simplistic statements of one group versus the other.

I am pleased that the Liberal spokesman, although unable to identify what particular group they are speaking for, prior to speaking, are showing some semblance of cohesion on this matter. Perhaps we should adopt the service club manner of having the guests introduce themselves and what party they speak for before they speak. (Laughter.)

If I may make another aside, it's been my great privilege as a social worker to bring the two Tories together for the first time in weeks. (Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: Ladybird, ladybird, fly away home.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonetheless, I have always believed in reconciliation.

Mr. Wallace: He's gone again. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's gone again. I'm glad to see that both front bench Members are holding their leader's hand today.

But aside from that, there is a sense of us coming together to deal with these things different than in the past when the former premier made the kind of bellicose announcement and took the little strings on his Minister of Labour, and through! his announcement dangled that Minister of Labour. This is a great step forward.

Sure it's difficult. Sure it's hard, and we may be back again in other situations, but it's a process of growth toward responsibility, and nothing is born without pain. Although there is some pain, it is progress, in my opinion, toward maturity. And I thank the Minister for that.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm a Member in this House from a riding where the strike is in force at the moment, and therefore my primary concern is a speedy end to the situation. But I'm just going to take a few minutes at the same time to represent some of my constituents' views about this matter because I think they were inadequately represented by the Member for North Vancouver Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), which is in the same circumstance.

I want first of all to express my appreciation of the very deep feelings of the Minister of Labour about this strike — his sincerity and his efforts in all that he has done. I am glad that he has called this House together. I wish it had been yesterday, but I'm glad we're here today and I hope that that will resolve the matter now.

But the sincerity of the Minister, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, doesn't save him from an occasional error. That error, I think, is a fundamental one that leads us to the withdrawal of emergency services which obtains in North Vancouver today.

There is an emergency situation in North Vancouver. There are three out of five firehalls manned, only three out of five. The two in the industrial areas are not manned and that means that the jobs of a great many people of North Vancouver are in jeopardy. There are two men only in each of the remaining three firehalls. It may well be, as the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour said, that if a fire giving danger to life and limb arose, persons on the picket lines would drop their pickets and go help fight the fire. I think that that would be the case with most of the firemen of North Vancouver. But what if it wasn't the case with the picket or pickets in front of that particular firehall that got the call? There is a problem.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Premier talking about feelings of anti-law in this continent, I think he raises a very important issue. But I would ask him to consider in his mind on which side the feeling of anti-law is in this particular case. Where is the preponderance of strong feeling? I remind him that the basis of law and order is respect for that law. There is a great lack of respect in British Columbia in general for a law that gives the legal right to strike for

[ Page 4355 ]

the withdrawal of certain very limited emergency services.

Look at the history of this particular mess. It's a history that stems directly from the actions of the government in conferring this right to strike. The Minister castigated the firemen, characterizing their attitude. I think I wrote down the words he used to characterize their attitude more or less exactly here. He said: "The right to strike is absolute and should be exercised fully." He said that that was the attitude presented to him by the firemen in his discussions.

Mr. Speaker, who led the firemen to have that attitude? Who led the firemen to believe that there was an absolute right to strike in their hands, absolutely theirs to exercise? None other than the government which passed that law very recently.

Look at the sequence: first of all the conferral of the right to strike on persons in emergency services, then continued protestations that under no circumstance would that right to strike be breached or abridged.

Even during the case of the near police strike in Vancouver referred to by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the Minister in answer to a specific question in the House said that it the people of Vancouver did vote for such a plebiscite to restrict the right to strike by policemen, he, the Minister, would not accept that and would not pass that into law. So the government has been very consistent and it said, "We are going to uphold the right to strike completely in these areas."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the unions were sucked in by all of this and brought to a position that is now a matter of considerable embarrassment to them. They went into a climate of bargaining in good faith believing that the government was going to uphold this absolute right to strike. But they couldn't resolve some long-felt grievances that firemen in small municipalities have which stem essentially from the relative lack of seniority compared to the City of Vancouver and the pay scale then discriminating against small municipality firemen who have large duties and relatively small wages. So they couldn't resolve that, and they went through the industrial inquiry commissioner and mediation and so on, and then they went on strike because they believed the Minister that they had a right to strike. It turned out they didn't have a right to strike, as they shouldn't have had all along, and yet the Minister won't back-off that theoretical position.

We should be doing more here today than what we are doing, although what we are doing is essential, because the maintenance of this sham that certain essential services will be allowed to strike is an invitation to this kind of thing happening again. The firemen of North Vancouver and other communities have lost hard-won goodwill, built up over many years. They're into a conflict they should really not be in, and the community has been endangered.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that this bill is a solution, but it's not "the" solution because it doesn't hit at the fundamental problem, and that problem is to suggest that there is an absolute right to strike in every job in our society. I suggest that that does not accord with reality, and the fact that we are here today passing a bill that in effect says so is evidence of that. We would be in better shape if the government made that specific and amended the legislation in that way.

The legislation also — and I will have more to say about this in committee stage — in effect attacks local unions in bringing them together in one joint bargaining council with the City of Vancouver, because the suburban unions have felt very strongly about their differences, and their right to bargain for their own men — to take into account their own differences. It may — and I will ask the Minister for clarification on this in clause 3 — it may in fact ask them to accept a settlement which is less than they had already been offered by the District of North Vancouver.

In that context, I want to say that I can't agree with the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) in his attack on the elected officials and the way they've handled this problem.

As far as municipalities combining with negotiations, I would point out to that Member that this bill put forward by his own government does exactly the same thing, and orders the unions to combine for negotiations. A little later on he suggested that the government by this bill is forcing the employees into the employers' position, and I would suggest to him that it's not up to the government and to this House to force the employees into the employers' position, or the employers into the employees' position — it's to look after the public's position. I think that a return to work by the firemen right now is the public's interest.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bill we have today is just a tortuous way around simple, binding arbitration legislation. It's a way of seeking to avoid grappling with the fundamental problem of the right to strike, and until that fundamental problem is grappled with we're going to have these circumstances again, time after time.

I would in fact remind the House that if things follow the usual pattern, negotiations should start in a month or so for the 1975 contract year and we will still not have what we need, in terms of legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude in saying that some elements in this legislation are good. It does put a contract in force and put the emergency services back to work. It provides for a cooling-off period, which I think is a good addition to our legislation.

[ Page 4356 ]

Therefore, I will support it, but I will do so at the same time condemning the government for raising this situation, for causing it in the first place in effect by the legislation it brought in, and then not resolving that basic problem now that the occasion has arisen.

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like — contrary to the last speaker — to associate my comments in support of the comments from the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann).

I would like to say at the outset I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the government has been forced to bring in this legislation today, particularly as it relates to a number of citizens in my community in a rather arbitrary way.

The previous speaker commented about elected officials in commenting on the comments of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, that the elected officials had abrogated their responsibility.

I would like to concur with that statement, and in doing so point out that I was an elected official in the municipality of Richmond for five years, during which time I served that entire five years as a member of the fire committee and was chairman of that committee in Richmond for three years: I found that one of the big problems we had was that the elected officials were not directly involved in the negotiations with the firemen. And the dispute we see before us today here in this Legislature is one that has been festering for some time and goes back several years.

When I was chairman of the fire committee in Richmond, I was in a capacity to negotiate with the firemen and actually on the management side, which you might find interesting. I know the firemen very well, and I found them over the years to be very reasonable people, and very responsible members of the community I might add. Our firemen at any rate — and I can't speak for the other districts — but many of them have been involved in the community, or they belong to community associations. They do all kinds of things — collect funds for disabled people and so on — aside from the regular firefighters' duties, so they are, I think, some of the finer and more upstanding citizens of our community.

I think however, as I stated at the outset, that what we see before us today is a reflection of what has been an intolerable situation over the past several years, and has now just come to a head.

About three years ago we were faced with a strike in Richmond which was narrowly avoided. It was largely because the local officials — myself included — were not aware of what was being debated between the local firefighters and the municipal labour relations bureau. It was only when the firefighters came to the fire committee and said, "Hey, look, you guys haven't been listening and the council hasn't been listening to what's going on, and we're liable to have a strike tomorrow," that it shook some of us up and we looked into what was happening.

I relate this example of what happened two or three years ago because I think it's very basically what has been happening here today. We almost had a strike because the municipal labour relations bureau didn't want to provide the local firemen in Richmond with ear muffs and battle dress uniforms for fighting fires simply because the Vancouver firemen did not get ear muffs and battle dress uniforms. When we investigated, we found that it would actually save the Richmond taxpayers money. We only had about 40 or 50 firemen at the time, and ear muffs cost $2.50 a pair. The battle dress uniforms were cheaper than the drill uniforms, and they used to get a free drill uniform every year which they never wore because they never went in parades — they put those in their closets. The battle dress uniforms were actually cheaper and they were able to wear them fighting fires.

Mr. Gardom: How much for the ear muffs?

Mr. Steves: The ear muffs were $2.50

Mr. Gardom: I'll buy a pair. (Laughter.)

Mr. Steves: You may need them before I'm finished. (Laughter.) Anyway, this is the type of relationship that has gone on over the last two or three years between the municipal labour relations bureau and the firemen, and it has only now just come to a head.

I think that the local suburban fire departments, while accepting the overall principle of parity over the years, do have some differing needs, and in this case it was ear muffs and battle dress uniforms. I think they do have some differing needs, and this has been reflected in the negotiations this year. This is why we have seen the suburban fire departments not accepting the negotiations of the city fire departments.

We've also seen over the last three or four years quite a transformation in our fire department in Richmond — and this may be the same kind of transformation as elsewhere. We might say that we are having some growing pains. We were, up until three years ago, a volunteer type of fire department. We had one paid fireman per firehall, then we stepped it up to two paid firemen per firehall. Now in Vancouver I'm not sure what it is, but there are 9 or 10 firemen per hall — they have full staffs. We went up to two, and then to three, and we called in volunteers to assist.

To this day we still have only three firemen per hall, and in the main hall we have four. We call an, off-duty fireman to assist when we have major problems.

[ Page 4357 ]

I am pleased to state that since being elected as an MLA I have kept in fairly close contact with the members of our fire department and, like the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), was in very close contact with them during this strike and the weeks preceding it.

I would like to say the response I had from the local firemen was that they were willing to maintain the essential services. They weren't willing to go out and get cats out of trees and unlock doors when people lost their keys and so on — the type of call firemen get 90 per cent of the time — but they would carry on the lifesaving essential services.

I think this was borne out by the fact that we did have a fire in Richmond. The local paper this morning in Richmond has a headline: "Pickets Abandon Post for Blaze." It states: "Six or seven Richmond firefighters dropped their picket signs without hesitation early yesterday to respond to a house fire alarm." Now, I think they were very responsible in doing this and should be commended for that particular action. I might say that there were more men on duty on the picket line than there often is when they are on regular duty at the firehall because we don't have that many men manning our halls.

It may be that they were a few seconds later in getting to the fire than usual. That is understandable considering they were wearing picket signs instead of firefighting uniforms and they had to get their Tubber boots and everything on to get there. I understand from the chief that they got there quite promptly with very little problem.

But at any rate we do not have a full fire department as they have in Vancouver. As I said before, in normal circumstances we would only have three or four firemen on duty; off-duty firemen would have had to come in to a fire such as the one that happened the other morning. It takes time for them to get from their homes, to get out of bed in the morning, to get out to the fire at the best of times.

Morale has been good during the strike; the men have been close by. In this case, contrary to what the Member for North Vancouver — or whatever riding the Liberal Member (Mr. Gibson) is from — said, the firemen did get the call and were there promptly.

Now I would like to make a comment on parity. You might ask: why did we have a strike in suburban areas when they have been asking for parity with Vancouver? The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) touched on this partly when he said that the younger people did not accept the idea of having a disparity between the higher-paid man and the lower-paid man; that it should be a 12.8 per cent payment to one group and 11 per cent to the other. They were trying to get some equality in the payment of firefighters.

The other thing that was a bit of a problem which should be discussed here today is that the area of service is different and the situation by which our firemen and the Vancouver firemen have been hired and are working under is different.

In Vancouver we have 390 firemen under 10 years. Many of these have between five and 10 years of service. In the suburban areas we have roughly 290 all-told in the four areas we have been discussing. The vast majority of these have under 10 years of service officially, although some of them have 10 years of service in the volunteer fire departments for which they get very little credit. They may have even 10 or 15 years actually.

So, in effect, the ones who had been volunteers and hired on have a substantial service preceding their hiring by the local fire department.

Basically, when you read out all the proposals and counter-proposals that have been under debate between the firemen and the local councils and particularly the MLRB, the real gut issue of this dispute, I think, is in the idea of parity as it pertains to years of service. The Vancouver firemen, having a majority with over 10 years of service, have negotiated an additional 2 per cent at the 10-year level. Our firemen, of course, in the vast majority did not have that length of seniority as officially paid firemen, although many had it as volunteer firemen.

I would like to say that the firemen in our area are younger perhaps, but they are very well trained and are doing the same work and the same jobs as the more senior firemen in Vancouver are on a seniority basis after five or 10 years. In our area we don't have the people that long in service and they have had to get out and run the aerial ladder trucks, the emergency rescue wagons and so on for these essential services. They are doing the same job for which you would have to go through a seniority programme in Vancouver that may take you five or even 10 years before you would be entitled to do those jobs. So they are doing these jobs.

I think they have a just request when they have been requesting, instead of having a 2 per cent addition at 10 years, a one-year reduction of their apprenticeship because their apprenticeship, I think, is rather long.

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to observe that at this stage really we should not be dealing with the fine points of any matter in dispute or in negotiation between particular unions but merely on the principle of this bill. At a later stage you might be able to deal with it in committee. Would the Hon. Member try to confine himself to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Steves: Well, I've pretty well finished that part of it anyway, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it does pertain to the principle of the bill in that this is

[ Page 4358 ]

background information as to what I intend to say about what may happen in the future.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the suburban firemen wanted to cut down on their apprenticeship years. I relate to this very strongly because I found that, as a teacher, 13 years, of apprenticeship was rather difficult. In my opinion, because of this, the firemen really were asking for some kind of parity. The local councils were not bargaining in good faith when they said this was not a parity issue.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I am sorry to see these councils did not see the need to negotiate a separate agreement with their own forces and to recognize that suburban forces do operate under somewhat different conditions and have different needs within the general framework of an overall agreement. Basic parity, I believe, is a good ideal but there are some differentials that have to be recognized.

I am sorry the local council abrogated their responsibility, necessitating the drastic action the government is taking here today. I hope too, when the council of firefighters is set up, this whole problem of compression of the apprenticeship years will not be ignored and will receive immediate attention in spite of the fact that perhaps the majority of the firefighters in the Vancouver area, who will now become the majority of people on the new firefighters council, already have 10 years of firefighting experience.

Some Members in this debate have suggested that essential services do not deserve, have shown that they do not deserve and should not have free collective bargaining and that we should look into setting up programmes for compulsory and binding arbitration. I would like to say, as I said at the outset, that I am not too happy with this particular legislation. I believe it has been the result of a communications breakdown at the local level.

We had hoped that people would act responsibly and that the local representatives would not abrogate their responsibilities to their communities and pass things off to the government. Because we have had one attempt under the labour Act — and that attempt has not worked too well because the people did not work together rationally — I don't think there is any need for people to start screaming and hollering about compulsory binding arbitration. It takes time to get people to start to cooperate and work together instead of screaming and hollering at each other as they have done in the past under the Social Credit administration.

I might add that when we were faced with what would have been a wildcat strike in Richmond a few years ago under the Social Credit administration, the people probably would have ended up in jail had they have gone on strike. We don't need that kind of attitude any longer. To go back to that would be abrogating our responsibilities as a Legislature.

I think what we have to do is to look at this as a very sad example and a very sad undertaking but try to build from here and to get the groupings together in the future so they work out the problems before it comes to this state and requires such drastic action.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): At the outset I would be interested if the Minister, in closing the debate, could indicate the extent to which he was concerned about the attitudes of the participants in this dispute which led him to include in the preamble to this bill that the unions have failed to provide essential life-supporting services to the communities affected. We have now heard from two Members of the government party, each representing constituencies which embody in part municipalities involved in this dispute. The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) and for Richmond (Mr. Steves) have made the clear suggestion that the firefighters in their areas are providing these essential services. I think this is an important matter for us to have from the Minister before voting on second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a unique situation to find that all Members on all sides of the House appear to be united in their desire to act in the common good. It's a situation which I'm sorry only seems to arise when we're faced with a crisis in this province. What a delightful prospect it would be if this kind of unified approach to the resolutions of a problem could be found more often in other debates which we have in this House.

The other unique aspect of this debate is that we are here not to deal with individuals who are acting outside the law; and the Premier in his remarks talked about the attitudes of anti-law which are abroad in North America. I trust he didn't mean to suggest that the unions, in particular in this case, are in any way operating outside the law. Indeed, just the very opposite is true. The four firefighter unions with whom we are dealing so harshly today are following the very letter of the law which this government passed through this Legislature less than a year ago. I think no one should be confused about that aspect.

What we are doing here is to consider whether or not the existing law and obedience of that law is good enough in the public interest. I think the debates from all sides of the House and, I'm sure, the vote that will take place on second reading and in subsequent votes in respect of Bill 164, will clearly establish that the existing law is not good enough in the circumstances. That's what the position has been of my colleagues in this House.

We're doing some pretty harsh things, Mr. Speaker. We're trampling on the rights of unions in this

[ Page 4359 ]

province with this bill. We're trampling on the rights of individual workers to freely associate, because we are taking four unions — indeed, we're taking five unions, one union not even involved in the dispute — and we're melding them together by force of legislation, whether the unions themselves want it, whether their officers want it, whether their members want it or not. And that's a pretty serious step for this government to take, a step which I trust they only take because the predominant issue is the public interest; and I trust that they will recognize that when they recognize that the law they have passed does not stand up in comparison to the demands of the public interest. Therefore that law needs to be changed.

A great deal of discussion has gone on in the debates about the pros and cons of compulsory arbitration. I happen to know that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) is correct and so is the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) when they indicate that the settlement in the City of Vancouver…and I think in passing we must bless the Lord for having such a convenient settlement available to the government to lay over this particular problem. But the settlement in the city of Vancouver is not easily applied in the municipalities of North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Richmond, and Delta. Different circumstances exist.

I suggest to the Members who are opposed to compulsory arbitration that if there had been the opportunity of arbitration here at the behest of either of the parties, as well as at the behest of the Minister of Labour, who implored — in fact pleaded with — the union to use that technique, if arbitration had been used, then there would have been the opportunity of those individual unions to place before an independent individual or board the specific differences that affected their particular union in the discharge of its responsibilities in their particular municipality. Indeed, perhaps they could have overcome some of the difficulties with which they will be faced when we come to apply the City of Vancouver settlement with its large, very senior firefighting force.

That's an argument in favour of arbitration. These union members in these four locals would have had the opportunity not of accepting what the municipal labour relations organization Would offer them, but accepting the suggestion that somehow or other the City of Vancouver contract was applicable, but in sitting down before an independent tribunal and arguing their own particular case. What's so wrong abut the unions having this right? It is suggested that this somehow or other takes away the right to strike. The Premier made one of this usual speeches saying that this was a right that he would always protect — on and on and on and on.

I think we should clearly recognize this evening what we're doing to the right to strike in this province. We are saying, because it is an emergency when a firefighting unit withdraws its services, that this assembly should be brought together and we should make changes in their union structure and we should impress upon them a contract made with someone else. Then they have to go back to work.

If that isn't taking away the right to strike, then I don't know what we're doing. And that government is doing it. That government is doing it because the union has had the effrontery to stand up in favour of the law that that government passed and to exercise the powers that that government gave them under that law less then a year ago.

Let's not talk about how terrible it would be to take away the right to strike. The government is taking away the right to strike now because of the inadequacy of their own legislation. The unions throughout this province should recognize it. The unions should recognize as well some of the implications in the comments from the Minister of Labour during the course of his opening remarks about how unions perhaps should be gathered together and how one union is not going to be able to whipsaw somebody off against the other or one employer whipsawing somebody in between them.

Other unions can expect obviously this same kind of treatment. The specific amendments to section 57, which we'll deal with later, clearly indicates that this government is prepared to allow that to take place.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like, however, to compliment the Minister of Labour. I was offering my remarks to him in an attempt to be constructive. If I was not constructive, I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. But I want to compliment the Minister of Labour, not in respect of this legislation and the need for it but in the manner in which he has steadfastly attempted to bring together these parties and to bring about a resolution of this very serious difficulty.

He has been tireless in his efforts in this dispute and in others, and I know that he has earned the respect of responsible members of management and labour throughout this province in his very short term in office.

I just hope that the responsibility which is recognized in that Minister will be recognized by the parties, the individuals, who are affected by the action which we are taking here tonight. If there's one real concern I have about passing Bill 164, it was found in the comments of the Minister himself.

In his opening remarks he left a clear impression with me and other Members of this assembly that it was the union that was being irresponsible, at least their negotiators. I don't know about the rank and file, but those who were charged with negotiating he left the impression were being irresponsible. He left the impression that perhaps their legal counsel was

[ Page 4360 ]

being irresponsible. In spite of all his efforts to persuade them to a different course, they struck, went back to work and struck again.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) said that you can't make people work, and that's right. I'm terrified that if the attitudes which the Minister recognized in the union negotiators are in fact justifiable, when we pass Bill 164, we may find members of the union who are prepared to defy the legislation, withdraw their services, as the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour says they can do, and we can't stop them.

The Premier spoke about the difficulty of passing laws. He spoke of the difficulties there are in passing any law which will bring complete harmony in any segment in our society. We all recognize that; we're involved in the process and we know how badly we do it. I only trust that those people who are involved as a result of this legislation will also recognize the difficulties there are in bringing about complete harmony with the passage of any law but will recognize that, after all, we are a nation of laws not of men. It is not the right of any individual to decide whether a law is acceptable to him and therefore to be obeyed or whether it is unacceptable and therefore one he is free to disobey. That is anarchy.

I trust and implore that those people affected by our action here tonight will accept the consequences, whatever they may be, and work to improve their conditions and work with us to improve the law.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): It is three hours since we commenced this emergency debate. As I understand it, it is about 44 hours since the cabinet, after reaching the impasse, decided the situation was sufficiently serious to warrant the calling of the Legislature to discuss what turned out to be Bill 164.

I think most of us on the opposition side of the House recognized that this would be an opportunity tonight under less serious circumstances, as they have said, to remind the government that we told you so, that this was going to present a problem. Indeed, it has, perhaps sooner than many expected.

We also have the temptation to make partisan political mileage out of the situation, but I believe most of us on this side of the House have resisted that temptation successfully.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: You'll have to name the party.

Mr. Curtis: There are several we could name for you, Mr. Attorney-General.

The situation, I think, is too serious for that kind of comment across the floor, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can get on with this business. The previous speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), has touched on a very important and very crucial point in that we have not played out the last stage of this particular drama. We have no guarantee that the passage-of this particular bill will, in fact, return protection to about 250,000 residents of the lower mainland in the four municipalities which are the subject of our debate.

I would also like to compliment the Minister of Labour for doing his very best with an ill-considered piece of legislation which was passed in 1973. I think when he really steps back and considers the thing very, very carefully, he would probably admit to himself, if not to the opposition, that this right to strike among emergency-services people is a very, very complex, complicated subject.

We support the bill, and may we please get on with the job and hope the unions and municipalities concerned can resolve this matter tonight.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I just want to say a few words here on this important bill before us.

First of all, I would like to make reference to the Premier's remarks he made earlier that cheap, political politics have been made in this province. I'll certainly agree with him, but it certainly has been made by the NDP over a long time where they have attempted to get the union movement on their side. They were, of course, successful in doing so to some degree to come to power. I say this because the public know then, by introducing his political attack earlier this evening, that he has once more lowered the debate.

I don't think the debate should go on here much longer tonight. I am amazed the Premier would come out like this tonight after his sojourn in California. I would have thought it would have put him in a better frame of mind.

The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) already stated why we in the British Columbia Social Credit Party will support quick passage of this bill. Until the minute this bill is passed, there is a serious threat to lives and property of thousands of British Columbians. As the opposition leader stated, fire knows no time limit and fire waits on no debate.

Notwithstanding the declared intention of all parties in this House to pass this bill quickly in the face of an emergency, we have already been in this debate for an excess of three hours. It would be a tragedy if any loss occurred during the time we have been in this debate.

By the Liberal leader's (Mr. D.A. Anderson) own admission, the debate of last October clearly set forth the position of the respective parties in this House on the matter of compulsory arbitration and strikes in essential services. We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party see little value at this day, at this hour in a vocal repetition of already-stated positions. Surely

[ Page 4361 ]

the useful time to put amendments is after the public and trade unions have had a chance to see this bill.

We in this party oppose the right to strike in essential services and we believe there is a proper place in modern labour relations for compulsory arbitration in special cases. We hope the turmoil and pace of this frantic and emergency week has already made its mark in the mind of the Minister of Labour far more eloquently than would further repetition of already-known positions.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Except that there is a difference. We are not sloughing off our responsibilities. We are the arbiters; we are the lawmakers of this province and have this terribly blanket law that covers every group under any situation under any circumstance. We say that the lawmakers of this province will meet on a specific case, examine that case and determine what action should be taken.

This is the ultimate responsibility resting where it should rest. We're not sloughing off our responsibility. For many years I've said that this is the way it should be done. You leave the free collective bargaining process to take place with a most limited amount of inhibitions or limitations. Then, if a situation develops, the lawmakers get called in and they decide what action should be taken to correct any given situation.

I would remind you that this is not the first time we've taken this kind of action. Earlier this year the Legislative Assembly happened to be in session when this government found itself faced with a similar situation where there was possible danger. I'm referring to the municipal strike in Kamloops where all the reports indicated that there would be a flood situation develop. The municipal employees were on strike, no work could be done on the dikes, legislation was brought into this House authorizing the Provincial Secretary or the government to take the necessary action. But it was examined on that particular case and we made the decision on that particular case. That's our responsibility. But we examine each case as it comes up.

The fact that we're prepared to do so I think will help develop an increasing understanding of what labour-management procedures should be. In the meantime, the people of this province know that we have a government and we have a Legislative Assembly that, any time one side or both sides fail to reach agreement and jeopardizes the people of this province, will be called into session, will examine that particular case. So we're not spreading a blanket over any one group irrespective of circumstances, and we make the decisions on that basis.

I think that the fact we are meeting here tonight will bring some stability. It is a further step in bringing stability to labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia.

I urge the Members of the opposition who have spoken in favour of any blanket compulsory arbitration procedure to remember that you cannot legislate 100 per cent human perfection. It does require a different attitude on the part of both sides in labour and management. There's no legislation you can bring in that will make everything under every circumstance 100 per cent safe. At the same time, the damage you can do to the possibility of agreement being reached on a free basis will be far reaching unless we proceed along the present route.

So I just say I'm glad that the Premier gave the people of this province and this House some of the history of labour-management relations over the years in this province. It wasn't cheap political politics. It was a recognition and an enunciation of the weaknesses of what we have had that got us into the position where…and it's been happening all over the province, as the Premier pointed out. Who would have believed 20 years ago that in this country we would see a time when doctors would go on strike, when nurses would go on strike, when teachers would go on strike, firemen, policemen, teachers?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: No lawyers. Lawyers don't go on strike.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, lawyers have never struck. But the important thing is that this Legislature is accepting its full responsibility when it determines…it doesn't slough it off onto any other group. We accept the responsibility of deciding when the public interest is in jeopardy and what action should be taken to overcome that particular hazard.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank the Members of the Legislature for the contributions they've made to this debate. I particularly want to acknowledge the leaders of the opposition parties for giving a thoughtful response and, I think, an expression of their sincere concerns. We do indeed have some basic disagreements, and I really question whether or not this occasion is the appropriate time to go into lengthy debate on some of those differences of opinion.

I certainly respect the right of the opposition people to hold the views that they do, as much as I disagree with them. I'd just like to respond very briefly to some of the points that were made and some of the questions that were asked of me.

The leader of the Liberal Party referred to unfortunate legislation, referring to the Labour Code. I don't think it's unfortunate legislation. I think it's working quite well in the general terms of the labour climate in the province. I think the fact that we have one crisis situation should not be taken as a

[ Page 4362 ]

condemnation of the Labour Code. The term was used by the Liberal leader, and I regret that he would use phrases like that in this kind of debate. He said that I had used a plaintive note and an innocent attitude. I am not one who is known for being plaintive or being hesitant about stating my views and my position in a fairly forthright and fairly blunt way. That kind of note is a bit facetious and I'm sorry that the leader of the Liberal Party saw fit to inject that kind of note into this debate.

I have no hesitation in putting forward the position of the government in this dispute. I think I did so in a forthright manner and at the same time tried to trace the background of the dispute so that Members would understand the backdrop from which this legislation came forth.

There's been a whole ranging debate on the concept of compulsory arbitration as the appropriate way to ensure the public safety.

On the one hand the Members of the Liberal Party suggest that compulsory arbitration should be the device. I think the opposition is generally unanimous in that point of view. That's their right, but I disagree.

I think that when you arbitrarily legislate away the right of all of these groups to take strike action, you develop a system where their counterparts across the bargaining table are ensured that the effective strength of that union is certainly eroded and that true and free collective bargaining is impaired as a result because they can rely on the use of some other device which will in the final analysis bring about a solution to the bargaining dispute. I think even the threat of the right to strike by public servants is an important element in ensuring that collective bargaining is undertaken in a serious and a sincere way.

The concern expressed by the Member for North Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the concern expressed that we in some way are doing a great disservice to the union people involved by putting them in a council, is not quite consistent with your remedy. You suggest on the one hand, because of a unique situation where one group has exercised the ultimate weapon, which is their right to strike, that all unions, even those who have settled through good faith and free collective bargaining, should be affected and should be punished, as it were, by action which would now take away from them the right to strike and inflict compulsory arbitration.

Certainly, in my view, that cure is a break of good faith with those people who have made the collective bargaining system work. I indicated to you earlier and read the list of the areas that have indeed achieved collective agreements through the bargaining process: Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver city, West Vancouver, Surrey and Port Coquitlam.

Now to express concern that we're somehow doing an injustice to the firemen by putting them together into a council where they can bargain their relationship, their relative positions, between the outlying municipalities and Vancouver, to categorize that as somehow discriminatory and unfair while suggesting that we impose a penalty even on those areas who have shown good faith and made the collective bargaining system work, is not quite consistent, in my view, and is not a good solution to the problem.

Now I wanted to comment on a few other statements that were made. I'd like to sing happy birthday to the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), but I don't think there's time on this rather somber occasion. I do want to point out for his edification that a third party is not always the guaranteed solution. Even in binding arbitration it is not. And in this case do not forget that we had an industrial inquiry commission investigation into the dispute and the recommendation. And this is one of the very, very few occasions where such a recommendation was turned down over the last two years. So there's no guarantee that any precise provision is going to work. There's no key to success and industrial relations.

In my view, Mr., Speaker, one of the best approaches — and I think this is supported by all those people who are involved not only at government levels but on both sides of the bargaining table — is a variety of options, a more flexible approach and a less arbitrary one. To suggest that because we have found it necessary on this one occasion to come before this Legislature and deal with the specifics of an individual dispute it is somehow inconsistent with the view that I hold that generally the strike right should exist, is a failure to understand the dynamics of bargaining, in my view. I think the majority of people actually involved recognize that distinction.

The other point I wanted to make is that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) raised an important point, and I want to agree with him that in my view probably the members of the various fire departments would have responded to an emergency situation. I would certainly like to think that. They did on one occasion, and I would like to think that they would, had another emergency arisen. But the fact of the matter was that their union representatives failed to give me a commitment that they would provide emergency services, and I have no intention with playing Russian roulette with the health and safety of the citizens of this province. So that's the kind of situation we were in.

I think the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour has described it accurately and I certainly like to believe that they would indeed have responded in the crunch. But that was the situation, and against that

[ Page 4363 ]

backdrop we cannot gamble.

The other point that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour made that I want to agree with to some extent is the idea that in most instances when a crisis like this occurs and the public health in essential services is jeopardized, the thrust of the legislative solution is against the union. And indeed it is in this case, because of the unique circumstances involved. They are the ones who are being provided with a contract and their dispute interrupted. I acknowledge that.

But this is one good reason why there should not be a blanket, compulsory arbitrary solution to every dispute. Rather, I much prefer that the Legislature be called back and convened to investigate the individual circumstances of the dispute. It may well be that the responsibility for another dispute would rest solely in the hands of an intransigent employer. Under those circumstances, to deny the right to strike to the union and penalize them because of the employer's deliberate failure to negotiate a collective agreement would be most unjust. And when we have the methodology of this Legislature coming together and examining and investigating the individual circumstances of a crisis when it arises then we have the ability as fair-minded legislators to assess some of the responsibility where it belongs rather than always against the union whether the responsibility rests there or not. So I have some sympathy for what that Member said, and I want to assure this House, Mr. Speaker, that I have given a lot of thought to this need and will continue to examine and investigate a variety of responses in this situation.

The suggestion that the municipalities had not bargained in good faith because their mayors failed to appear at the bargaining table is a suggestion that I cannot accept. I believe that the employers have a right to designate a bargaining representative in the same way that the trade unions have, and in this case the trade union did in fact obtain the services of legal counsel to act as their spokesman.

I just want to say in passing that so long as the people who are responsible as the mayors and the local politicians were in this case kept in close touch and are prepared to meet from time to time with the trade union representatives and their employees, I don't view that as a situation of bad faith. So in general this is my response. I have tried to respond in a fairly general way to some of the points made.

One other thing that bothered me that I think I am obliged to comment on was a suggestion that perhaps the firemen would defy an Act of this Legislature. I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's rather regrettable that that was brought up.

I think the firemen's union has indicated publicly already the conditions under which they would be prepared to return to work. One of those conditions was their success in obtaining a collective agreement through their own resources. The other condition was upon an order of the Legislature. They have stated their intentions to be law-abiding citizens, and I think it's regrettable that Members of this Legislature should even speculate on the possibility of citizens defying the highest law-making body in the province.

The suggestion has been made again by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) that I must take issue with, although well motivated. I find it regrettable that as a lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, he would suggest that simply because a right to strike exists this implies the right of the firemen to take full use of that device. I think that a lawyer, of all people, should know that we all have rights as citizens. But the suggestion that we have an absolute right to exercise that right to the full extent without reference to a social obligation, without reference to the circumstances involved, without reference to the consequences on our fellow citizens displays to me a very shallow understanding of the concept of law and democratic order.

I think that it's regrettable that that suggestion was put before the House by a member of the bar, and a Member who is fairly eminent and I think very intelligent. That's certainly a concept which I can't accept and which I don't think most citizens of this province would accept.

One other thing before I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Words that were attributed to me in the media terming the situation abhorrent, and various other descriptive phrases, were correct. But I did not call the parties abhorrent. I said it was abhorrent that a situation could be allowed to develop which could jeopardize public health and safety. I would thank Members of the opposition to not infer that I would use inflammatory language against either of the parties involved in the labour disputes. I don't think that's contributed much in the past and I doubt whether it would in the future. It's not my intention to indulge in that kind of rhetoric.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members for their attention, for their contributions. I want to assure them that there will be other occasions for discussion of these wide-ranging issues.

I said last year that the code was not etched in stone, that we would be changing it. We are flexible. We like to respond to different ideas and better suggestions. There's a time and a rational atmosphere when we'll be able to engage in that kind of discourse again, and I'll welcome it.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 164 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 4364 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 163 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 164; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson: Section 1, and inferentially section 2, would remove the bargaining autonomy of the local unions in five separate locals and amalgamate them into one.

I would be very glad if the Minister could give the House some of the reasoning behind this. I'd ask him to address himself to two separate questions: first of all, why did he settle on these five bargaining units? He did not include, for example, North Vancouver City, Burnaby and New Westminster. Perhaps more importantly, however, I would ask him why he felt it essential to amalgamate the five groups into one for the purpose of this legislation, because it would seem to me that the end result, namely the imposition of the contract pertaining to the City of Vancouver, could equally well have been imposed without going through that process.

As the Minister knows, the local unions are very jealous of their autonomy because they feel rightly that the problems of the firefighters in the various smaller municipalities surrounding Vancouver are in important ways of a different character. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) made a very good case along that line.

There are special problems in the municipalities, and there are very important differences in terms of the length of service of the members on those various forces. The members of the suburban forces, North Vancouver is the one I know best, tend to be of much lesser service in terms of time because those forces are simply younger forces, more recently established and therefore they feel a need for different pay scales in order to have what they see as parity with Vancouver. In fact, that's one of the very important issues that has hung this whole process up.

So I would ask the Minister if he could give us some of the philosophy underpinning this need to forge the five locals into one.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, the philosophy behind the use of this device to bring about a collective agreement in this dispute was based in large part on the representations that were made to the Industrial Inquiry Commission by both parties and also on the recommendation that was made by the Industrial Inquiry Commission.

The basis of the representations to him mainly pertained to the Vancouver collective agreement. There was a disagreement over a certain inequality as between the municipalities on the periphery and the City of Vancouver contract. But I think that that lies at the heart of the dispute also and I'd like to just briefly explain that here we have a trade union with a number of locals, but all the same union composed of people doing the same job essentially, firefighters.

The history of the Vancouver Fire Department, as Members have mentioned, preceded the history of the outlying departments. Therefore they established policy in terms of bargaining postures. They have negotiated over the years this incremental staging of gaining journeyman fireman status, in effect. We then have four locals of the same union come in and say to the municipalities, with whom their same union had negotiated this criteria, "This is not good enough for us now. You'll have to turn it around or throw it out and create an inequity between our two relationships," which would in all probability inflame the Vancouver situation.

Now, in my view the best way to resolve that problem, and it is a problem, is to allow the union to bargain their way out of it in the same way that they bargained their way into it.

So we have put together the four peripheral locals with the Vancouver local to ensure that they can bargain together, to ensure that they will have some say and a fair representation in the bargaining structure, so that their interests and their particular circumstances can be served through a central posture of one union approach, rather than the whipsawing of two approaches within the same union to deal with the same people.

In my view it makes sense and I think in the long term, for the firemen involved, it offers a good solution in which they have, if anything, increased bargaining power.

Now let me say that the Council of Trade Unions does not imply the erosion or the destruction of the autonomy of the local unions. It simply provides that they must bargain together as a council with a common expiry date to their contract, and with one voice at the bargaining table. There is a duty of fair representation imposed by section 57 or 58 of the code in terms of designing that council, and the Labour Relations Board has the administrative authority to help shape and guarantee that right of fair representation. So in my view this was the least destructive and repugnant solution to a problem in which the government had to act in an arbitrary fashion. And that's the criteria and the rationale for it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gibson: Could I ask the Minister further then, Mr. Chairman, whether he considered adding the other municipalities within the lower mainland —

[ Page 4365 ]

New Westminster, Burnaby and the City of North Vancouver — to this arrangement on the logic that he just mentioned as a first question? As a second question: whether it is in his mind that for the foreseeable future this joint council of negotiating unions will be kept in place?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Member reads the provisions of sections 57 and 58, that question would be answered. The unions will have the right on their own volition, or I would have the right on my own motion, to ask the Labour Relations Board to consider the wisdom, the feasibility of changing or varying a bargaining unit to add to a council in the same way that the existing council would have the right to make application again to vary the council that has been set up.

Mr. Gibson: Even to have it dissolved?

Hon. Mr. King: Conceivably have it dissolved if they made application and the board, in their wisdom and after full hearings and investigation, found that the structure was impractical or unjust. Yes.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: A question for the Minister, Mr. Chairman. He mentioned there had been general agreement by the unions as well as by the municipalities that this take place. Representations have been made to him to this effect is the way he described it. I wonder whether he could tell me how many of these association locals, (a) to (e), actually want to have what he's putting in in section 1.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I'm confused by the Member's question. I indicated that representation had been made to me for the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission, and that the parties had agreed to the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission, I did not mean to imply, if indeed I did, that any representation came forward on the basis of the Council of Trade Unions. If I left that impression, I apologize. That is not what intended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I thank the Minister for clearing that up. Could he then indicate to me, further than his reference to the industrial inquiry commission, how many of these locals want what he's doing in section 1, and has he asked them whether they want it, and have they said yes or no?

Hon. Mr. King: No, Mr. Chairman, in light of the emergency situation which we were faced with, the government had only a number of options in terms of bringing about a solution to the dispute which would restore services. In light of the frequent appeals I had made and the suggestions which I had offered, which had all been declined, I certainly felt that the time had come where we had to grasp the nettle, as it were, and make a decision. That's what I bring before the House.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, the Minister confuses me, and I'm not suggesting that he's intending to. But I gather that we've now taken five unions and formed them into one council without any consultation with them. One member of that council, namely the Vancouver Firefighters, has been bargaining in a way that is completely unacceptable to the other four and that's why we've got this dispute.

It seems to me that in binding these people together we're not going to resolve the problem we have today, we're only going to intensify that difficulty because I do happen to know that the Vancouver Firefighters' Union is a much larger union and its bargaining approaches, which are historic, are unlikely to be easily changed and certainly are not going to be acceptable to the other four unions. Yet you lock them together, and this is your way of resolving the thing.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this point may I say that the resolution of the difficulty in section 3 that we'll have to deal with shortly is that, having bound them all together and having made one council the bargaining unit, you apply a contract to that one bargaining unit. Why don't you just apply that one contract to each of the individual four and leave them as they presently are? Then they could work out resolutions on a council basis of their own free will or with your direction.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I've tried to explain to the Members why I chose this device. I explained as well as I could the historic bargaining position that had been taken by the union and the spin-off of a number of locals departing on a different policy. I suggest that there is no guarantee that that would not continue to occur and create a position where at least two and possibly more bargaining policies were adopted by a number of closely related fire departments in their demands upon their respective employers creating inequities, creating imbalances which became the source of continuing labour disputes.

This is precisely the kind of situation which we have in the forest industry with respect to tradesmen rates where, to solve the pulp side, the IWA was offended. It led to a wildcat strike, and the industry was certainly hard-pressed there to come to grips with a solution that would resolve it without solving one problem and creating another, to resolve the total picture. This is the motivation for it.

I've tried to explain also that the autonomy of the locals is not lost; it simply means that they must

[ Page 4366 ]

bargain together with one common policy. I suggest that in an attempt to resolve their difference in bargaining concepts the best way to do it is through common cooperation between the union people in one local, rather than have them at odds with one another in their postures approaching municipalities, creating situations in effect where municipalities cannot find a basis for settlement.

Mr. Gardom: Are you establishing regional bargaining?

Hon. Mr. King: We are establishing regional bargaining to some extent, and I stated in the debate last year that it might be necessary in other instances….

Mr. Gardom: Teachers and trustees?

Hon. Mr. King: No, but I suggested that where one small local in a multiplicity of union situations, composed of perhaps 35 or 40 members, could tie up an industry composed of 6,000 people, obviously something had to be done with the structure of the unions in that industry and this is essentially the same concept. I draw to your attention, in terms of understanding it, the situation in the building trades where they finally came together voluntarily under the direction formerly of my Associate Deputy Minister, Mr. Kinnaird, and made some sense out of bargaining stability in that industry. I draw your attention to the shipbuilding industry….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Minister that that should be brought up under section 6.

Hon. Mr. King: Okay. I'm simply responding, Mr. Chairman, to a query that was put to me in terms of understanding the rationale and the design of the unit.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I think it's rather important that we establish then what the Minister has just said — he is in favour as a general policy of reducing the number of locals into councils of unions in order to simplify negotiations.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that I think it would be more appropriate to discuss this in general terms under section 6 rather than section 1.

Mr. Wallace: Well, I'll put it another way. I think you are being rather picayune, with respect, Mr. Chairman, but I thought that we were debating in a very fair sense of cooperation and fair play today, and I wouldn't want to start becoming divisive by actions and decisions of the Chair.

Mrs. Jordan: Remember — it's your birthday.

Mr. Wallace: Even though it's my birthday, I'm not necessarily in a good mood. (Laughter.)

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask strictly in relation to section 1, in that case, that the Minister has said that these four unions will lose none of their autonomy and will be able within the council to bargain in what they consider their best interests. But the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) did point out that the Vancouver union is much larger than the other four. To what degree in this bill do the four smaller unions depend on representation? Is there a formula? Will they have equal representation?

There are many other thoughts which go through my mind, because while the Chairman was sensitive about the mention of regional bargaining in the teaching profession, the education committee is just about to go on tour and this kind of concept is most important, at least to me, on the committee to know whether this is an initial step in the general policy of this government to encourage a reduction in the number of unions bargaining basically about the same issues but in different parts of the province. The danger of that, if this policy is followed, is that certain unions, say, in rural areas or in smaller towns under different circumstances will feel that their capacity to bargain and their autonomy will be compromised by this kind of formation of councils of unions.

Is this a one-shot deal that we are talking about here in section 1 of this bill, or is it meant to be some of the flexibility that, Mr. Chairman, through you, the Minister has talked about both when we debated the Labour Code and just a few minutes ago? I wonder if you could comment on that.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this statute is a response to an individual situation. It is not contemplated — I repeat, it is not contemplated — that the council of trade unions concept would be considered as the normal device for entering into a labour dispute.

Rather, the concept was introduced in the Labour Code in '73, and explained at that time, that where whipsawing and fragmentation created continual labour unrest and instability in an industry, this is one device which either by motion of the union or by my office could be considered as a means of coming to grips with the problem of very, very small units holding back settlement only to, in effect, play the prima donna and blackmail the general membership with their ability to tie up that industry. It could conceivably happen. I'm not suggesting it has. But that is a problem and has been a problem to some

[ Page 4367 ]

extent.

Now that is one thing. The other thing is that the trade union movement in a variety of circumstances may well want to come together to form this kind of council. I pointed out that that has occurred also. But let me point out that in specific response to your concern about the autonomy of locals with respect to bargaining, yes, they will be in a council, and yes, they will lose the sole decision- making right over their own contracts. They'll be in a council and there will be a collective bargaining committee representing membership of the five locals. But section 57(3) provides that the Labour Relations Board:

"may make such orders and issue such directions as it may, at its discretion, consider necessary or advisable respecting the formation of councils of trade unions and ensuring the fair representation of the trade unions comprising the council."

That gives recognition to the smaller locals to ensure that they receive an equitable voice in the bargaining process and that their interests are not bargained away by the larger locals.

This is the responsibility of the board to design a council which guarantees these rights insofar as is possible. Now it's not absolutely perfect, but this is the first experiment that has been undertaken to come to grips with that problem. It's a serious one, and that's the best explanation I can give.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson: A quick question for the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

The section, in effect, submits the suburban locals to the contract between the City of Vancouver and its firefighting employees. I would ask if this contract sets the amount of pay for its officers in terms of a formula designating years of service and average rates of pay, or whether it is in terms of absolute amount. The reason I ask that is that while I can't speak for the other municipalities, I know that the District of North Vancouver has made an offer to its own local which would have enhanced the amounts which would have been paid to officers to the City of Vancouver level, to the absolute level. Now if the City of Vancouver provides for the establishment of these amounts by formula rather than absolute amounts, it could be that the North Vancouver people would lose something they have already been offered by this section. I ask for clarification.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver agreement will be the agreement that binds all of the locals involved, except to the extent that the municipalities agree with their unions to vary that collective agreement. They're allowed to do that to accommodate any peculiarity that may exist between their particular employment relationship and that of Vancouver. It's basically up to the parties to agree to any changes which they wish. But, in effect, the Vancouver agreement in its entirety will be the collective agreement for all of the locals.

Mr. Wallace: I'd like the Minister to clear up a comment that he made in closing second reading which really relates to section 3. In rejecting the concept of binding arbitration, he mentioned specifically that a third-party involvement in making a decision had many disadvantages. Yet in section 3 the third party is the government.

I wondered if the Minister was suggesting that inevitably a decision imposed by the third party, namely government, must always be preferable to the decision that might have been rendered by another third party, namely a binding arbitrator. I wasn't quite clear in the thrust of his comment.

While we'll later be debating the amendment giving the option to both parties to seek arbitration, I wonder if he could clarify the comment he made. It left me with the impression he was suggesting that this was a much preferable third-party mechanism in section 3 than would be the third-party mechanism of having an arbitrator whose decision would be binding.

Hon. Mr. King: I think the Hon. Member for Oak Bay should recognize that this is a rather unusual situation where a parliament has been called to come to grips with a high public interest dispute. There has already been a recommendation or a report by a third party.

I think in the usual circumstances, a parliament develops a third party or a board or tribunal to come to investigate and take certain actions, perhaps to compel the parties to live with that report. In this situation, we had already had the services of an industrial inquiry commissioner. It was on a non-binding basis, granted, but he was involved in an assessment. An impartial assessment had been made which must bear some weight. It related very strongly to the Vancouver settlement.

Now, I think there is a distinction to be made — maybe it's a philosophical one; maybe it's a rhetorical one — on the basis of the solution here which is a bargained collective agreement. Maybe that's hypothetical, but in my view it does mitigate somewhat the arbitrariness of the action by this

[ Page 4368 ]

Legislature.

Mr. Wallace: It's such a contentious point between the two sides of the House philosophically as to whether there should be any measure of compulsion in any negotiations. It's correct, as the Minister stated, that there was a recommendation. In fact, a quotation from the Province here on Thursday, August 8:

"Mr. Jack Lasko, the president of the Richmond firefighters, said, 'They've offered us dollar for dollar to match the officers in Vancouver, but that doesn't help the young guys at the low end of the scale. We want an additional 2 per cent.'"

Now, all I'm suggesting is that had the third-party recommendation been binding we wouldn't be here today. That's just the whole point of this debate between the two sides of the House. All the avenues were exhausted or followed until they could be followed no further. The recommendation which was turned down is the very recommendation which this government is imposing on the firefighters. It's exactly the recommendation which the third party recommended and is now being imposed by the Legislature. Had that recommendation of the third party been binding, we wouldn't be here today.

It's all very well to say this is a unique situation, but it's going to happen again. If it isn't the firefighters, it will be the policemen. If it isn't the policemen, it'll be the hospital workers, I fail to see why, in the light of experience and in the light of the debates we've had in this direction section by section on Bill 1, which was the Labour Code, the Minister would not give some indication that debate has shown that binding arbitration — for example, in this case — would have been the ultimate solution.

It's particularly ironic that the final solution this House is imposing on the firefighters is the very one which the non-binding third party suggested.

Hon. Mr. King: That's not quite true, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that the Member for Oak Bay has not had an opportunity to read the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commissioner. But he did not, in fact, offer a firm solution to the question of the incremental increases. He suggested that be the continuing basis of discussion as a basis of resolving that question. So there was no pat answer there.

The other point is that certain Members have suggested that there's a question as to whether the firemen will accept the will of this Legislature. If Members in the opposition have that concern, I don't know how they can possibly labour under the presumption that workers will in every case accept compulsory arbitration as a panacea for solving all problems. If they feel aggrieved under that circumstance, don't you think perhaps they're inclined to challenge it also?

But I explained before, without getting back into a debate on compulsory arbitration, that I would rather deal with the disputes on their merits. In this case, one particular set of circumstances existed. There could well be a situation where an employer had acted grossly irresponsibly. Under those circumstances, is it fair to direct a prohibition in legislation against the employees' right to strike? The presumption is contained there that the union is always the one who must have its economic sanctions limited to some extent. I think the advantage of dealing with each individual situation as it occurs, aside from the salutary effect it has on the community at large, is that we as legislators, fair-minded people, are able to take into consideration all of those circumstances and to consider more flexible and appropriate remedies. That's my approach.

I prefer, Mr. Chairman, not to continue on a debate here. We're dealing with the sections. I appreciate that, and I'll address myself to it again and urge the House to give quick passage.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

Mr. Gardom: A word to section 6, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister. First of all, I would reiterate a complaint that I have raised in this House before. I continue to raise serious objections about the method in which amendments are introduced in this House. There is absolutely no reason that I know of why existing section 57(1) should not have been printed here, which would clearly indicate perhaps a need for its elimination under the present statute, so we could have something to compare. I'd be extremely surprised if 100 per cent of the Members in this House have read existing section 57(1).

Now, under existing section 57(1), the board had the right to clarify a council of trade unions as a bargaining agent. Essentially, your change here, Mr. Minister, if I'm reading your amendment correctly, is to the effect that you may, upon the application of one or more trade unions or on your own motion, direct the board to consider as to whether or not. So it's a second step as opposed to, in the initial situation, a primary step. I'd like to know the reason for the amendment.

Hon. Mr. King: I acknowledge the problem of introducing amendments without providing the Members with an indication of what we're out to accomplish. But I would remind him, in all fairness, Mr. Chairman, that we are in a bit of a crisis situation where time was limited and of the essence in dealing with this statute. I offer my apologies that I couldn't

[ Page 4369 ]

perhaps have circulated a sheet to explain these amendments as I have done in the past.

The purpose basically is to accomplish the power of my office to at least filter to some extent the applications that might be made to set up councils. I think Members will appreciate that certain applications could be made in circumstances which were not conducive to good industrial relations and peace and harmony on the labour front but rather for some more political reason or for some preferential reason in a certain set of circumstances where the benefit and the intent of this section, this provision would in effect be perverted, Although this amendment is not really relevant to the dispute which we're dealing with….

Mr. Gardom: That's right.

Hon. Mr. King: It's not relevant to that at all. It was a necessary element of proclaiming sections 57 and 58, which have not yet been proclaimed, and which I intend to recommend to the government will receive proclamation immediately following this session.

There was a reason for this. The effects of these provisions were intended to be salutary ones to begin with a kind of a signal — that in the kind of situations I've described tonight there could be a remedy, and that perhaps the trade union movement should look to methods of resolving their own problems relating to this question of fragmented bargaining. So this is simply a move to remedy a defect in that section so that we can have it proclaimed immediately. And I think it will serve well in the future.

Mr. Gardom: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, the existing section could be proclaimed immediately too. I don't think that argument has the greatest of strength. But the Minister has not really satisfied me as to why it's more advantageous to follow the filtering system through your office that you've suggested under this section as opposed to the way this section was initially written, and it would go first to the board. Why does it have to go through a political office first? It was not going through a political office in the initial stage, and now the only route is through a political office. I can't see the reason for it. In fact, I can think of a few reasons against it.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I've tried to explain to the Member that there are certain circumstances where the use of this provision, the application for a council of trade unions, would be altogether inappropriate. I have tried to explain to him that there is a need in terms of assessing the industrial relations aspect of it. It should be filtered, and that's my responsibility as Minister of Labour. The board's responsibility as an adjudicative agency is simply to establish the facts of the application and a design of a council, should one be indicated. So there are two different sets of circumstances and criteria. I submit that it certainly is preferential that I have that opportunity to have a look at the circumstances under which the application is made before I refer to the board. This is done with respect to the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission.

Mr. Gardom: Of course the board could overrule your attitude too; they still have the right to do that.

Hon. Mr. King: Well, in an adjudicative way, yes, by all means. If they found through a hearing and through an investigation of the specific circumstances that this was impractical, then they would decline.

Mr. Gibson: A question to the Minister with respect to subsection 7, and the recommendation that there should be a period not exceeding 21 days as a cooling-off period. I would ask the Minister if he had considered other lengths of time and why he settled on 21 days rather than, say, 45 days or 60 days, which might give more time for investigation of the circumstances of a case should further investigation be required.

Hon. Mr. King: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I never got all of that question; would the Member mind repeating it?

Mr. Gibson: The basic question, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is why 21 days, and not some other period of time — say 45 or 60 — to give a greater time for investigation of the circumstances should that be required.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I felt that 21 days is certainly ample time to ensure that the Legislature can be called into session without undue inconvenience and some of the rather hectic preparations that had to be made under these circumstances. Basically it's a guarantee that the public interest will be preserved and protected at all times — even before the Legislature is convened — to find a solution and that there is a methodology.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I must say to the opposition that to this extent I accept some of their criticism in terms of the Labour Code approach to the situation. I think that perhaps this should have been thought of earlier so that we could guarantee that there was not going to be a period of time between the strike and the time that the Legislature could be convened where essential services would be removed and people's safety jeopardized. That in fact

[ Page 4370 ]

has happened.

I suggest that this provision, the imposition of this delay of 21 days, ensures that that shall not happen again and that the Legislature can be called in a more rational way and that, also, the remedies might be discussed in a less emergent climate so that Members of the opposition would not feel constrained to hurry their input into the debate.

Mr. Gardom: Well, I take it clearly, Mr. Chairman, from the remarks of the Hon. Minister, that he's issued a caveat here tonight that the Legislature would in all probability and practicality be called on the 22nd day. That's how I construe your remarks.

Mr. Wallace: I just wanted the Minister to clarify this question in the light of his comments that subsection 8 says that the order can only be made in respect once in the same dispute. If the 21 days expired and the party concerned went on strike on the 22nd day because the same original agreement still had not been renegotiated, presumably that is the same dispute. Would he, under these circumstances impose another 21-day cooling period?

The fact is that the Minister is admitting that maybe a cooling period should have been in the original code. I think this was raised in debate, as a matter of fact, that cooling-off periods have certainly been used in the United States legislation. I think it should be said also that the way this reads…. In order to understand fully what he intends, would he interpret for us more clearly the use of "more than once in respect of the same dispute"? In other words, is he in effect saying, as the former Member just asked him, that if after 21 days the negotiations are not completed, the Legislature is the only avenue which will then settle the dispute?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I have clearly stated a number of times that the 21-day freeze is inserted precisely to allow time to call the Legislature to find a solution. I would have no intention of imposing a freeze and sitting by while that time was passed without convening the Legislature. I would suggest that that would be most irresponsible to insert a clause like this and then sit by without calling the Legislature into action within that time frame, and well within that time frame, to ensure that we found a solution before we were faced with a work stoppage.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, one more specific question with respect to this subsection 7. I presume that it is designed to apply to legal work stoppages.

I would ask the Minister specifically: would it also apply or could it be applied to illegal Work stoppages or wildcats or slowdowns?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I missed part of that question again. It's not that I don't want to listen to you specifically. I suggest to you that an illegal work stoppage 1s altogether different than a legal strike in essential services. There are remedies to illegal work stoppages; they still exist through the courts.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up the answer the Minister gave. Could I get it very clear that the only purpose of the 21-day cooling-off period is to give this House time to be assembled? Is that what the Minister said? I always understood that the cooling-off period was intended to give the parties time to cool off and renegotiate and come to a decision. I surely hope that the concept in subsection 7 certainly is not simply to give Members of this Legislature time to be called into session. Yet I gather that that's what the Minister's answer was a minute ago. Is it not to give 21 days for further consideration by the parties concerned?

Hon. Mr. King: My friend, I know you're being serious. This is simply a guarantee that the Legislature could be called and would, in fact, be assembled within that time frame. That is not to say that negotiations and that every effort would not be continued in terms of mediation and in terms of any intervention that I could offer to find a solution before the Legislature was finally assembled. That in fact has happened before your very eyes these last few days.

It does give us the opportunity to ensure that the Legislature can meet before that right to strike is exercised if the effect of the strike would jeopardize the health and safety and indeed the lives of citizens in the community. So it should not be inferred from that that we will stop bargaining and we will stop trying to find voluntary solutions. But at least we're guaranteed that there won't be a period between the time they take strike action and the House can be convened that the public is left uncovered in terms of these necessary services to their life and health.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to section 6, the last part of it on page 3 where the so-called cooling-off period or, I guess, say, the cranking-up period for the Legislature terminates. I think there should be some provision for going to compulsory arbitration in essential services. The reasons, I think, are fairly clear and they've been put forward before. I'll be as brief as I can now.

The reasons are that we have granted in the Labour Code something which is totally phony. We granted the right to strike and as soon as it's exercised, we meet here tonight to whip it away from the unions who use it. We set up a situation where the right to strike is tossed in there as one of the weapons

[ Page 4371 ]

they can use, but if they use it, by golly, they're going to have us here. First they're going to put on a 21-day freeze, they're going to bring us here and then you're going to take away that particular right when it's exercised.

So it's a totally phony thing that you have talked about as a right and it's something which we should all appreciate and talk about frankly. There is no such right, there is no such privilege, there is no such authority. If they take it, we're going to take it away.

I have had real difficulty in understanding the Minister's arguments tonight when it comes into this area. It's like those arguments that you get, Mr. Chairman, in some American states on the right to bear arms or the right to bear hand guns, you know. You can carry them, sure, you can have them there in public view and you can threaten people with them but, by God, if you use them, you're up for murder.

This is the type of thing which the unions are faced with in this particular area with this so-called right to strike. Sure you can have it but, no, for heaven's sake don't use it. Certainly you can threaten people with it, but don't use it.

We meet here tonight to undo what was talked about by the Minister and by many Members of his party less than a year ago in our debate in October. The only fair and honest thing to do is to face up to the fact that these people are not getting the right to strike, they're not able to use it and it is as phony as the proverbial $3 bill. It does not improve their bargaining position vis-à-vis the municipalities. It does not improve their ability to deal with their membership. It just simply is an impediment, something we must realize and get rid of.

The Minister has often said that it would be unfair to unions to insist upon compulsory arbitration and yet he himself tried so hard in the last few days to get the unions involved in this dispute to take on arbitration — compulsory arbitration. He tried and tried and tried and yet he said that if he put that in the legislation, he strong-armed them as best he could and failed. He's willing to admit it and he gave us quite an account of the troubles of the Minister of Labour in the last few days and weeks. He gave quite an account of the difficulties he has had and that's why we find ourselves here today, because of his failure, not because of his personal ability to handle the situation, because of the failure of the legislation under which he is working to deal with the problem as set up.

Now many irresponsible statements have been made about illegal strikes. I would like to state for the benefit of those who didn't understand that there will be illegal strikes in police, fire and probably health services from time to time in parts of the world, and the Minister listed some. But to suggest that by setting up beforehand a reasonable system accepted by both sides for compulsory arbitration you therefore will instantly get an illegal strike if that arbitration decision comes down is obvious nonsense.

The Minister himself has tried to get compulsory arbitration involved in this particular dispute. So it just doesn't make sense for us to go around saying that there's a right to strike, saying that there's a strike weapon available when we all know that the whole thing is as phony as can be when it comes to essential services.

Let's face up to reality and face up to facts. We all know that we'll be called in within that 2 I -day period to kill off any union that attempts to use that strike weapon, and indeed in this particular bill we're wiping out the individual local's ability to negotiate and forcing them into a council, apparently not only without their consent, but without even consultation with them.

So let's face up to the fact that there is no such useful device in the area of special services because we will take it away as soon as it is exercised. So let's try to set up something which is better in anticipation — something which is set up, as the Minister indicated, in the calm period before there is a dispute of this nature, before we're called here late at night on a Friday evening. Let's try and set up something which they perhaps can agree to beforehand.

I deny completely the suggestion that arbitration always goes against labour. It does not. In the case of the firemen in the City of Victoria, the other side, the city, feels badly burned by the award which eventually came back by way of arbitration. They feel it was excessive.

Now, fair enough, they felt badly that time. There will be times when unions feel badly off because of arbitration, but in no way is it something which always works against labour as the Minister has suggested. So we're in a situation, Mr. Chairman, where for honesty's sake, for frankness' sake, we should put in an amendment at this time to this section which would read as follows:

This is adding after the words "shall be suspended" in the 10th line of the third page: "Where at the expiry of the 21-day cooling-off period no agreement has been reached, either party may elect by giving notice in writing to the Minister and to the other party to resolve the dispute by arbitration. In such cases, subsections 2 to 4 above will apply." I so move that motion.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: On a point of order. The Hon. Member is wrong because he's amending section 6 in this amendment and it's really section 7. We haven't reached it and I'm not going to make a big point about that.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: There's no section 7 in this bill.

[ Page 4372 ]

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: However, Mr. Chairman, this is advice that I got from my learned friend back here, that your numbering was wrong. I want to say that this Member never makes small mistakes but, boy, he makes big ones, and this amendment is outside of the principle of the bill. You're proposing a different principle, arbitration, which is definitely outside of the principle of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. On the point of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, would you allow discussion on the point of order?

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You have to allow discussion.

Mr. Chairman: I will rule on the point of order. The Chair agrees with the Hon. Attorney-General that that particular amendment is out of order, and I would quote the authorities: Beauchesne, section 406A; also Speaker's Decisions, the first volume of the Journals of Speaker's Decisions, 1903, April 28, the decision of the then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. This quotes Mr. Speaker Pooley's remarks. "Mr. Speaker Pooley ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it introduced a new class of people to receive the benefits, et cetera." It's beyond the scope of this bill and I would so rule it out of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On a point of order. The whole purpose of this bill is to introduce compulsory arbitration by legislation, so all we are doing is….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, your ruling is absurd, The section of the Attorney-General wasn't even the right one. I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: On section 6 of the bill presently before the House I made a ruling that an amendment in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria was out of order on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the principle of this bill. My ruling was challenged.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question before the House is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 15

The House in committee on Bill 164; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 6 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 164, Essential Services Continuation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House took recess at 9:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching; would all Members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Deputy Clerk: Essential Services Continuation Act. In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

[ Page 4373 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet.

Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

And that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:05 p.m.